한국어 강의에 나타난 담화표지 연구

Abstract

This study classified Korean and Chinese discourse markers in the materials obtained by recording basic- and intermediate-level Korean reading lectures in China, transcribing the recorded materials and create a corpus; and compared the frequencies of lecture discourse markersin terms of the lecturer’s ethnic origin and class level and analyzed their discourse functions. This study found a considerable problem with the use of discourse markers by Korean language teachers that appeared in the corpus materials. Addressing this problem, this study has presented three ways to encourage foreign Korean language teachers to use lecture discourse makers. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. First, this study synthesized definitions of “lecture discourse markers” and has defined it as a type of independent spontaneous speech intended to help students understand lecture content and teachers’ intention when they provide education, perform management and interact with students. Lecture discourse markers fall into two categories: macro discourse markers at the phrasal and clausal level and micro discourse markers at the word level. The Korean macro discourse markers appearing in Korean language lectures were classified into 16 types in relation to their functions. With respect to Korean word-derived micro discourse markers, they were classified into five types: pronoun-derived, adjective-derived, adverb-derived, interjection-derived, and noun (+ postposition)-derived discourse markers. The five types of micro discourse markers were further classified into 45 types. As for typical Chinese discourse markers used by teachers, a total of 13 types of macro discourse markers were identified in relation to two categories: affirmative and interrogative forms; and a total of 21 types of micro discourse markers were identified in relation to parts of speech. Second, lecture discourse markers used by Korean language teachers were examined from the perspective of Korean language education and the examination found a considerable difference in teachers’ speech between ethnic Korean and Han-Chinese teachers. It was found that in basic-level Korean reading lectures, ethnic Korean-Chinese teachers used Korean discourse markers more often than Han-Chinese teachers. Notably, Han-Chinese teachers hardly used macro discourse markers that can help students follow the flow of a lecture. Han-Chinese teachers teaching intermediate-level Korean reading used macro discourse markers more often than Han-Chinese teachers teaching basic-level Korean reading but less than ethnic Korean-Chinese teachers. In basic-level lectures, Korean word-derived discourse markers appeared 1,886 times in total and the most used one was ‘어,’ pronounced eo (614 times). Interjection-derived discourse markers, such as ‘자’ pronounced ja (464 times) and ‘응’ pronounced eung (152 times), were often used. The frequencies of Korean micro discourse markers appearing in basic- and intermediate-level lectures were similar. Korean word-derived discourse markers appeared 3,235 times in total, and the most used interjection-derived discourse markers were ‘어 (1,098 times),’ ‘응 (390 times),’ and ‘자 (344 times)’ in descending order. Third, the functions of lecture discourse markers were classified into two types: discourse markers for topic organization related to lecture progress and interactional discourse markers. The discourse markers for topic organization were divided into seven categories: topic introduction; topic explanation; topic change; topic connecting; topic summarization; topic closing; and speech gap filling. It was also found that the interactional discourse markers had four functions: evaluation and error feedback; confirmation of understanding between two parties; expression of personal viewpoints and attitude; and stressing and drawing attention. This study found a considerable problem with the use of discourse markers by Korean language teachers that appeared in the corpus materials. First, although macro discourse markers cannot be used a lot for basic-level Korean language learners who cannot speak Korean fluently yet, the fact that Han-Chinese teachers hardly use macro discourse markers is a problem since it does not help learners understand and learn macro discourse markers. Second, it was found that in basic- and intermediate-level lectures, Han-Chinese teachers used Chinese discourse markers more often than ethnic Korean-Chinese teachers. Han-Chinese teachers need to use Korean discourse markers, whether macro or micro, more often when giving lectures. Addressing this problem, this study has presented three ways to encourage foreign Korean language teachers to use lecture discourse makers. First, training for would-be and current Korean language teachers should encourage them to effectively use Korean lecture discourse markers. Second, Korean language teachers need to learn how to effectively use lecture discourse markers and use them more effectively. Third, Korean language teachers need to enhance their awareness of self-monitoring regarding the use of lecture discourse markers.