ABSTRACTS – 2002
A. WORKSHOP PANELS
1. Kang, Sahie. The Effect of the Use of English in KFL Classrooms of Non-heritage Learners
2. Kim, Eun Joo, and Kijoo Ko. Teaching Korean in the Framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): How
Is It Different from Other Approaches?
3. Kim, Gwee-sook. Toward Better Practice in KFL
4. Kim, Hae-Young. A Focus on Form approach to the teaching of L2 Korean grammar: Tense and aspect markers ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu
5. Park, Hyeson. Grammar Teaching and Korean as a Foreign Language
The Effect of the Use of English in KFL Classrooms of Non-heritage Learners
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
It is commonly believed that the more the target language is used in foreign language classrooms, the higher proficiency level the students would achieve. Also, if English use were dominant in foreign language classrooms, it would give negative impacts on foreign language learning. The same belief can be applied to Korean language classrooms for non-heritage learners: the more Korean is used in KFL classrooms, the higher proficiency level will be achieved; that is, minimizing the use of English would facilitate the learners’ progress that much more.
This paper investigates how much use of English and Korean would help students’ improvement of proficiency at different levels of Korean. Two different classrooms were observed for a year. The teachers restricted the use of English in one group of students, but the teachers did not refrain from using English at all in another group. Also, the teachers’ own journals noting how much English was used and their self-evaluations of the use of English were collected. In addition, the students’ survey of how much English and Korean would help their learning was also added. In order to check the correlations between the English/Korean use and the proficiency improvement, the results of proficiency tests of the two groups are compared. Based on different data, this paper proposes that the use of should be restricted in appropriate ways from the first day of foreign language classes for non-heritage learners.
Teaching Korean in the Framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT): How Is It Different from Other Approaches?
Organizers: Eun Joo Kim, Ohio State University
Kijoo Ko, UC Berkeley
In this panel, we will first introduce how grammar is taught in the theoretical framework of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) by comparing and contrasting it with three other traditional teaching methods (e.g., GTM, ALM, and CLT). Then, we will show how to conduct a language class in the framework of TBLT by showing some hands-on practice and actual classroom teaching demonstrations of two different approaches (TBLT and ALM). The results of student evaluations on the teaching demonstrations will also be discussed with comments from the organizers, followed by a discussion on the pros and the cons of TBLT. The session will be organized as the following:
1. Overview of Methodologies for Language Teaching (Kim & Ko)
2. Hands-on Practice (Ko)
(1) Characteristics check-out
(2) Activities check-out
(3) Class design (TBLT vs. ALM)
3. Demonstration of Actual Classroom
(1) Background (Kim)
(2) ALM session (taught by Youngjoo Yi (firstname.lastname@example.org)
(3) Background (Kim)
(4) TBLT session (taught by Youngjoo Yi
(1) By students (Kim)
(2) By researchers: Comments and feedback (Ko)
5. Pros (Kim) and Cons (Ko) of TBLT
6. Questions, Comments, Suggestions and Discussions (Audience)
Toward Better Practice in KFL
Teaching success requires commitment and a more sustained effort in the increasingly complex educational environment. Educational philosophy has shifted from the familiar teacher-centered paradigm to a learner-centered one. Historically a teacher transferred knowledge to students through talk and chalk. The current thinking emphasizes that knowledge is jointly constructed by students and faculty.
The teaching assumption in the old days was that any expert with a graduate degree could teach at the college level. Until recent years college faculty members did not talk with one another about teaching, though they may have collaborated on research. Therefore, most of us plodded through a trial-and-error process while learning how to teach. Today teaching is viewed as a complex application of theory and research that requires considerable training and ongoing refinement of skills. At this juncture a number of institutions have taken a leadership role in training new faculty members and graduate assistants to teach effectively.
Being consonant with the new trend, this session intends to provide the KFL teachers with an opportunity to extend their teaching repertoire by sharing their current practices with one another. Participating teachers are expected to conduct 5- to 10-minute microteaching that involves one skill (speaking, reading, etc.) or one teaching tactic that has worked well in their classrooms. This will be a good way to invite valuable comments from other colleagues with different experiences. Teachers from small programs where Korean-specific feedback is hard to obtain are particularly encouraged to participate. For aspiring graduate students, their active participation in this session may be a fruitful opportunity to impress prospective employers.
After an hour of sharing teaching ideas and practices between participants, Young-Mee Y. Cho will show how she presents poems in her advanced course, followed by Gwee-sook Kim’s demonstration of ways to increase learners’ input in the classroom. The session concludes by Joe Ree’s brief talk on “learning strategies.”
Classroom demonstrations will require:
4-5 students (or participants role-playing students)
1 small table and 4-5 chairs
1 cassette tape recorder
A Focus on Form approach to the teaching of L2 Korean grammar:
Tense and aspect markers ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu
Hae-Young Kim, Duke University
EunHee Lee, UCLA
K. Seon Jeon, Georgetown University
In this panel, we will present an approach to teaching L2 grammar that is theoretically motivated and empirically validated. Research on second language acquisition has shown that L2 learners’ development of target grammar occurs largely independent of classroom instruction on the grammar. On the other hand, it has become more and more apparent that older second language learners do not acquire some aspects of L2 grammar in naturalistic learning environments without pedagogic intervention.
This panel focuses on tense and aspect markers, ess, e iss, e noh, and e twu, noting the challenge posed by the complex tense/aspect system both to the learner and the teacher. The panel proposes a Focus on Form approach to the teaching of these markers on the basis of: (i) their semantic properties; (ii) learners' difficulties with them; (iii) the role of input and interaction in SLA; and (iv) tested pedagogical strategies to help students to better understand and use the targeted forms.
Part 1 Meaning of the Korean tense and aspect markers
Korean has a rich tense and aspect system whose morphology is quite complex. Subtle differences in meaning among these markers present challenges to both students and instructors. For example, students have difficulty distinguishing between e noh and e twu, failing to use them when they are called for. Students simply, but correctly, equate ess with the English past tense but do not fully understand its varied meanings that are context-dependent. It has been also observed that students have difficulty using e iss and ko iss properly to indicate resultant states, especially because there seems to be no clear-cut semantic boundary between the two. This presentation provides the semantics of these tense/aspect markers, which will serve as a basis for effective instructional presentation.
The difference between e noh and e twu, we argue, is that the former is a dynamic event description, focusing on culmination, whereas the latter expresses a resulting state, presupposing its causal event. The difference between e iss and ko iss is that the former indicates a genuine resulting state which takes only intransitive verbs as its input, while the latter can (be made to) express resultatives with transitive predicates when the result describes a property of the subject. We will provide empirical evidence to demonstrate the differences between the markers along with the results of a sample survey designed to show the difficulty students have experienced in learning them. Then, a clear pedagogical strategy for presenting the markers to the students will be proposed, which we submit will meet the teachers’ need.
Part 2 Pedagogical strategy:
Input processing instruction for e noh and e twu
Having demonstrated the nature and functions of the tense and aspect markers under consideration, as well as the difficulty that L1 English speakers experience in learning them, it is necessary to bring the learner's attention to the forms. It should be reminded, however, that for instruction on grammar to be effective, target forms should be integrated with meaning (Doughty, in press). More precisely, learning tasks should be designed in such a way that (i) the learner is guided to notice the form in the input (e.g., "input processing instruction" in VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993); (ii) engagement with meaning is promoted prior to forms (e.g., "input enhancement" in Leeman et al., 1995); or (iii) the forms are essential for or natural to a communication task (Loschsky & Bley-Vroman, 1993) or a game (Harley, 1998).
This presentation will demonstrate "input processing instruction." In contrast to the traditional "output practices" that put the emphasis on “producing the targeted items,” input processing instruction guides the learner’s attention to the targeted form in input and its connection with meaning (VanPatten & Cadierno, 1993). The goal of instruction is to influence the learner’s developing L2 grammar by intervening in the most crucial phase of acquisition, i.e., of perceiving and processing the form in the input.
The demonstration of the instruction will start with a brief explanation of the functional difference of the aspect markers, presenting contrastive sentences like Pwul-ul kye-yo, Pwul-ul kye noh-ayo, and Pwul-ul kye twu-eyo. Then, interpretation tasks will follow, which make use of two communication situations where the aspect markers occur naturally and frequently. In a listening comprehension task, students will listen to a dialogue about what people have forgotten to do before leaving home (e.g., Changmwun-ul yel-e noh-asse.), while looking at a picture of the home and checking off things they hear. In another task that involves the use of a recipe, students will read (or listen to) steps of cooking (e.g., Talkyal-ul cal pwul-e noh-nunta.) and select a matching illustration from a pair. Other form-focused listening practices and output practices that could follow up input processing activities will also be discussed.
Part 3 Input, interaction, and output:
Interaction enhancement for teaching the difference between e iss and ess
K. Seon Jeon
Part 3 of the panel deals with how one particular focus on form technique, interaction enhancement, can be used effectively to teach Korean tense and aspect markers. First, SLA research literature on input and interaction will be reviewed briefly. The second part of the presentation will concentrate on the theoretical and empirical basis for the use of interaction enhancement and on how this technique can be pedagogically implemented. Finally, some possible ways to teach the tense and aspect markers using the interaction enhancement technique will be suggested.
Among various interactional benefits, output has been claimed to play an important role in SLA (Swain, 1985, 1995). The functions of output include: (i) a noticing function, (ii) a hypothesis-testing function, and (iii) a metalinguistic function. By producing language, learners can move to syntactic processing from purely semantic processing in language learning, thus being able to restructure their current interlanguage (IL). As one way to increase the likelihood of learners’ IL restructuring, interaction enhancement has been proposed as one FonF technique (DiPietro, 1987; Muranoi, 1996, 2000). Interaction enhancement is defined as “an instructional treatment in which a teacher pushes L2 learners to produce output and provides them with interactional modifications in order to lead them to notice a mismatch between their IL grammar and the TL grammar and lead them to modify the incorrect output within the framework of strategic interaction” (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p. 242).
To start the demonstration of interaction enhancement for the target forms, the meaning difference between e iss and ess will be explained using sentences such as Ilpon-ey ka-ss-e-yo and Ilpon-ey ka-iss-e-yo. The instruction is based on an interactive problem-solving task in which the teacher uses a scenario to create contexts that guide learners to use the TL in realistic situations. It will consist of three phases: a rehearsal phase, a performance phase, and a debriefing phase. In the rehearsal phase, the instructor gives the class a scenario in which a student comes home with a friend to find a mess in his/her apartment, and he/she is trying to figure out what his/her roommate did before leaving the apartment. One student in a pair will be given a picture of the apartment scene and will be asked to describe what he/she sees in the picture (e.g., Kesilmun-i yelri-e iss-e-yo). The other will listen to the description and guess what the roommate did or did not do before leaving the apartment (e.g., Kesilmun-ul an-tat-ass-e-yo). A student-teacher pair will first demonstrate how to perform the task and student-student pairs will follow it up in the performance phase. During the performance by a student-teacher pair, interactions are enhanced by requesting a repetition when a student performer makes errors attempting to use the target forms. Finally, in the debriefing phase, the teacher and the students evaluate how well the interaction was carried out, with a focus on how successfully the intended meanings were conveyed to the listener.
Doughty, C. (in press). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation and enhancement. In C. Doughty & M.H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty and J.Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.197-285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DiPietro, R. (1987). Strategic Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. (1998). The role of focus-on-form tasks in promoting child L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 156-174). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E. (2000). Dynamic and stative information in temporal reasoning: Korean tense and aspect in discourse (Groningen Dissertation in Linguistics 30). Groningen, the Netherlands: Universiteitsbibliotheek Groningen.
Muranoi, H. (1996). Effects of interaction enhancement on restructuring of inter-language grammar: A cognitive approach to foreign language instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: integrating formalinstruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
Loschsky, L. & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (Vol. 1, pp. 123-167). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C.Madden (Ed.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook andB.Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G.Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. & Cadierno, T. (1993). Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction. Modern Language Journal, 77, 45-57.
Grammar Teaching and Korean as a Foreign Language
University of South Carolina
Several approaches to language teaching have been developed within the general notion of communicative language teaching (CLT) method: notional-functional, content-based, and task-based approaches. The task-based approach (TBA), which was developed to overcome some weaknesses of the notional-functional approach, has been welcomed to be the best method for CLT classrooms. It has been pointed out, however, that a challenge for TBA is how to incorporate focus on meaning and focus on form in classrooms( Willis & Willis,2001). The purpose of this paper is to examine how/whether TBA can be implemented in teaching Korean as a foreign language and to explore the possibility of achieving both fluency (focus on meaning) and accuracy (focus on grammar) in Korean language classrooms.
The communicative language teaching (CLT) method, which replaced the grammar-translation method and the audio-lingual method, focuses on language use as a medium of communication rather than on language form as an object of instruction. Due to CLT’s emphasis on authentic language learning in natural environment, the attitude of CLT teachers and researchers toward grammar instruction was either negative or indifferent. Krashen, the best known L2 scholar who was against formal grammar instruction in L2 classrooms, distinguished learning and acquisition, arguing that knowledge learned consciously was different from knowledge acquired subconsciously, and only the latter type of knowledge could be used for spontaneous oral communication. Thus, he proposed that the goal of L2 instruction should be fluent communication of meaning, which would be possible only if learners were exposed to sufficient comprehensible input without any instruction of metalinguistic knowledge. Those who unintentionally and indirectly have helped to encourage the negative view on the grammar instruction are UG oriented L2 researchers, who believe that language acquisition is constrained by human being’s innate predisposition to acquire language. The main concern of the SLA researchers working within the UG framework is whether UG principles and parameters are still available in L2 learning, and thus grammar instruction and other pedagogical aspects of SLA have been of no interest to them.
Immersion language programs in Canada were the first major project which set out to implement and test CLT. Longitudinal results of the immersion programs, however, made L2 researchers rethink the effectiveness of CLT. It has been observed that students who were taught foreign languages in the immersion context made many grammatical and pragmatic errors even after 12 years of language learning experience (Swain, 1985, 1991). It was pointed out that a weakness of CLT is its exclusive focus on fluency at the cost of accuracy.
As a remedy to the weakness of CLT, it was suggested to reintroduce grammar teaching into L2 classrooms, though under different names such as consciousness-raising tasks (Rutherford, 1988), input enhancement (Sharwood Smith, 1993), and focus on form (Long, 1991; Long & Robinson, 1998). Long (1988), through an extensive review of classroom instruction research, showed that formal instruction, though it cannot change the developmental sequences of acquisition, can expedite the learning process. The formal instruction, however, should focus on form, which involves ‘alternating in some principled way between a focus on meaning and a focus on form’ (Long, 1991). According to Long, focus on form contrasts with focus on formS, which refers to instruction in which language forms are isolated and taught one at a time.
In their summary of research on focus on form, Doughty and Williams (1998) conclude that ‘to teach or not to teach grammar’ is not a question for L2 teachers any more, but ‘how/when/what to teach’ is the question they have to deal with. In this paper, we will focus mainly on ‘how to teach’, which is related to explicit vs. implicit introduction of language forms. At one extreme, Long & Robinson (1998) recommend implicit approach to grammar teaching arguing that focus on form is an incidental product of communicative tasks. Their advice is that teachers should not predetermine which forms to teach, but just need to provide feedback only when students make errors which are systematic and consistent. Thus, of the teaching approaches within the broad CLT method, the task-based approach (TBA), which involves specification of a sequence of communicative tasks to be carried out in the target language, is proposed to be most compatible with the principle of CLT. At the other extreme, De Keyser (1998) proposes to allow an explicit focus on form abstracted away from immediate engagement with meaning. His approach is closely related to Doughty and Williams’s (1998) proposal for a proactive approach to focus on form, which ‘emphasizes the design of tasks that ensure that opportunities to use problematic forms while communicating message will indeed arise.’ (p. 211).
Most L2 researchers agree that focus on form needs to be incorporated into CLT oriented classrooms, especially TBA classes. However, the consensus stops there. No agreed upon answers to the question of ‘how to teach’ can be found, mostly due to insufficient research on CLT and TBA in language classrooms (Willis & Willis, 2001). Thus, it appears that the question of how to implement focus on form in TBA classes is a major challenge for L2 teachers and researchers (Loschky & Bley-Vroman,1993; Skehan, 1996).
3. Grammar and task-based teaching in Korean language classes
If no consensus has been reached on how to teach grammar in CLT-oriented ESL classrooms, which have been the focus of extensive research on L2 formal instruction, then it might be impossible to try to find an answer to the question of how to balance focus on form and focus on meaning in CLT/TBA oriented Korean language classes, considering the fact that few studies have been conducted on learning Korean as a foreign language.
Korean language teaching, in keeping up with the development in SL/FL pedagogy, is also moving toward more communicative and task-based approach. This change can be found in recently published Korean textbooks such as Integrated Korean (Cho et al. 2000), which was developed by experienced teachers of Korean and Korean linguists. For example, each unit of Integrated Korean for Beginners is organized around tasks and functions which learners need to solve or perform (e.g. organizing a birthday party, talking about someone’s major etc.). Each unit of this book also includes a separate section on grammar, which has the following components: presentation, explanation, and practice. The task for teachers who use this kind of textbook in her class would be to find creative and effective activities to introduce these grammatical structures along the communicative tasks. In order to explore ways to incorporate grammar instruction in CLT/TBA oriented classes, we will consider some possible grammar activities, some of which are from already published grammar activity books (e.g. Ur, 1988; Rinvolucri & Davis,1995), while some are of our creation.
Larsen-Freeman (1995) says that there is no one method or mechanism which works for the learning of all aspects of grammatical structures in all learning contexts. Thus, in order for a successful incorporation of grammar instruction in their CLT and task-based language classes, teachers need to consider target structures, learner needs, and learning contexts.
1) Target structures: Teachers cannot teach all the aspects of grammar. There is too little time even for one thing. So, teachers have to be selective on what to teach. Some common candidates for instruction in ESL classes include tense, relative clauses, and conditionals. We will examine some activities to teach these constructions in Korean based on Ur’s (1988) method for ESL. Topic and case particles, honorifics, and null-argument phenomenon are unique to Korean/Japanese and it would require creative thinking on the part of teachers to teach these structures to students whose L1 is typologically distant from Korean or Japanese. We will consider some possible communicative activities which may facilitate learning of these structures.
2) Learner needs/learning contexts: In most Korean language programs, there are two distinct groups of students who have different language background and needs: one of the
two groups is the Korean-American students who command fluent spoken Korean, but have problem in reading and writing in Korean. Most of these students have ample opportunities to be exposed to Korean outside of classrooms; hence their learning of Korea is very similar to learning a second language. The other group does not have any previous experience with Korean or opportunities to use Korean outside of classrooms. This group is learning Korean in a foreign language environment. It is a very important for teachers to consider the different needs and contexts of these two groups and try to adjust language instruction to these differences. The Korean-American group is more or less similar to the learners in the Canadian immersion programs in that both groups have succeeded in achieving fluency, but failed in achieving accuracy, especially in reading and writing in the case of Korean-American learners. As a remedy for the Canadian learners, Swain (1991) proposed to use output oriented tasks which introduce grammar in a more explicit way, arguing that learners will notice the hole in their knowledge of the target language when they try to produce expressions in the target language. I would propose that the Korean-American students will also benefit from this type of tasks, and explore some ways to implement output oriented tasks with explicit focus on form. Their knowledge of the Korean grammar learned consciously can function as a monitor/editor in their productive language use. On the other hand, the students with no previous exposure to Korean first need to build up oral communication skills, which can be accomplished best by focusing on communication of meaning without too much concern on accuracy. Focus on form should be introduced gradually as the learners’ oral language competence develops. Ways to implement the implicit focus on form, such as input enhancement and consciousness-raising, as is recommended by Willis & Willis (2001), will be explored.
Breen, M. (2001). Syllabus design. In D. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cho, Y-M, et al. (2000). Integrated Korean: Beginning 1. University of Hawaii Press.
De Keyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C and Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In P. Eckman et al. (eds.), Second language acquisition theory and pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loschky, L and Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice. Bristol. PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Long, M. (1988). Instructed interlanguage development. In L. Beebe (ed.), Issues in second language acquisition: Multiple perspectives. New York: Newbury House.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot et al. (eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Long, M. & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. and Davis, P. (1995). More grammar games: Cognitive, affective, and movement activities for EFL students. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W. (1988). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165-179.
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Willis, D. and Willis, J. (2001). Task-based language learning. In D. Carter & D. Nunan (eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Note: The abstracts written in Korean (IAKLE members) follow the ones written in English.
1. *Baek, Joonki. Teaching the Appropriate Use of Different Korean Speech Styles
2. Byon Andrew Sangpil. An annotated syllabus for KOREAN 600 ‘Introduction to KFL Pedagogy’
3. Cho, Eunsu. The Development of Web-Based Korean Text Material
4. Cho, Sungdai. Heterogeneity in the Classroom
5. *Cho, Sunah. My Journey on CMC
6. Choi, Sunhee. Technology-Supported Collaborative Korean Language Learning Project
7. Kim, Eun Joo. Investigating the Acquisition of Korean Particles by Beginning and Intermediate Learners
8. Kim, Hi-Sun Helen. Language Background, Motivation, and Attitude of Heritage Learners in KFL Classes at the University of Hawaii at Manoa
9. Kim, Jin Kyu. Hunmongjahoe: The Pedagogical Implications for Korean as a Second Language
10. Kim, Mi-Ran Cho, and Andrew J. Lotto. An Investigation of Acoustic Characteristics of Korean Stops Produced by Non-heritage Learners
11. Kim, Myoyoung. Writing as a Facilitating Methodology for Mixed Beginning Classes
12. Koo, Eun-Hee. The Effectiveness of Using Music and Songs in Teaching Korean
13. Lee, D.J., Young-Geun Lee, and Siwon Park. Web-based Korean Language Placement Tests
14. Lee, Mijung. The role of corrective recasts in L2 Korean: Accusative relative clauses and the honorific
15. Lee, Namhee. The Implications of Neurobiology for Adult Second/Foreign Language Learning
16. Lee, Saekyun H. The utility of TV commercials in teaching culture
17. Lee, Steven K. The Relationship between Motivation Type and Korean Language Achievement
17a. Lee, Steven K., Soyoung Choi, Jessica Chung, Song Yi Han, Seonhye Kim, and Kimberly Moon. Korean
bilingual education issues in public and Korean schools
18. Lee, Y.-G., S. Yuen, H. Kim, C.S. Ahn, S. Yoon, S.B. Baek, and S. Park. Guidelines for Item-Writing for the Curriculum-Based Placement Test: Development and Application
19. Lim, Byung-Joon. Use of the Internet resources to Teach Business Korean
20. Park, Bo Y. Teaching Korean in an Integrated Four-Skills Way with Pictures and Maps
21. Park, Eunwook. Think, work, & talk together: Revisiting cooperative learning
22. Shim, Woo ill. The comparison between ‘–중에서’ and ‘among’
23. *Wang, Hye-Sook. A Review of Research in Korean as a Foreign Language
24. *Yang, Jean Sook Ryu. Motivational and De-Motivational Factors of Korean Language Learners at an American University: A Case Study
25. You, Seok-Hoon. Teaching Korean Kinship Terms to Foreign Learners of the Korean Language
26. *Cho, Hyun-Yong. 한국어 유의어 교육 연구
27. Jung, Sunny.
28. Kim, Chung-Sook. 한국어 교재에서의 과제의 개념 및 활용 방안
29. Kim, Hyun-Jin. 시청각 교재를 활용한 효율적인 수업의 모형: 인지 언어학적 접근을 중심으로
30. Kim, Jae-Wook. 한국어 교사용 지도서의 개발과 그 구성원리에 대한 연구
31. Kim, Young-man. 과제 중심의 고급반 수업 구성에 대한 연구
32. Lee, Dong-Eun. 한국어 평가 담화의 특징: 한국어 교사들의 담화분석을 중심으로
33. *Park, Dong-Ho. 효율적 한국어 학습자 사전 구축을 위하여
*These papers will not be presented.
Teaching the Appropriate Use of Different Korean Speech Styles
Defense Language Institute-Foreign Language Center
By all accounts, Korean is one of the difficult languages to learn. In fact, DLI (The Defense Language Institute) classifies Korean as a category IV language. One of the most difficult aspects of this challenging language is a good understanding of the proper use of the various speech styles which characterize the Korean language. I believe that by examining the basic framework of Korean speech styles, and with reference to some of the more troublesome areas encountered by first- or second- year Korean students, a viable classroom approach can be found.
As a Korean instructor at the University of Hawaii, and now at DLI, I witnessed first-hand the frustrations of Korean language students due to their confusion in this area. The solution to this problem must include a systematic approach that will allow the student to gain an understanding of speech styles in a more natural and coherent manner. My proposed methodology comes as a result of extensive personal observation, analyzing scripts of current television programs, and interviews combined with a study of recent literature published in this area.
Korean daily speech incorporates various levels of speech styles, which differ subtly but significantly. And to American students, who approach the world through English-speaking eyes, these subtleties are very hard to grasp. A beginning Korean language student should, therefore, first learn how to incorporate the polite speech style as opposed to using deferential endings. Americans might naturally wonder how or why it could ever be a mistake to employ deferential speech styles. A simple example, “Annyenghasipnikka?” vs. “Annyenghaseyyo?” reflects the tip of the iceberg. An American student at DLI might overhear a younger female instructor addressing an older male teacher “Annyenghaseyyo?” and be surprised that the younger individual used the polite form instead of the deferential form. But if the student thought that the younger teacher made a mistake, it turns out that it is really the student who was mistaken. In the situation cited above, using the more deferential form resulted in an awkward encounter that accentuated the distance between the two instructors involved. In truth, effective Korean discourse must always factor in the circumstances of a given situation.
Correct speech styles are essential to reinforcing language competence from the very first communication between two people. The goal is to promote a more natural speech style on the part of the learner. After all, how we speak has everything to do with the all-important first impression that we make.
An annotated syllabus for KOREAN 600 ‘Introduction to KFL Pedagogy’
Andrew Sangpil Byon
The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor / The State University of New York at Albany
To this date, the universities in the US that have offered graduate programs in Korean linguistics and pedagogy are the University of Hawaii at Manoa and UCLA. As the need for theoretically and practically grounded KFL education specialists has steadily arisen in the last three decades, the demand for a KFL pedagogy course has increased as well.
The goal of this paper is to suggest an annotated syllabus and narrative for a graduate KFL pedagogy course. For ease of exposition, the course is named “KOREAN 600: Introduction to KFL pedagogy”. KOREAN 600 is an introductory course for graduate students who plan to teach Korean at the college level. In the process, three issues are addressed:
It is hoped that this paper contributes to the existing field of KFL teacher education, offering a sample KFL pedagogy course syllabus, firmly grounded and designed based on the theoretical and practical elements of SLA, educational psychology, SFLP, and curriculum development.
The Development of Web-Based Korean Text Material
University of Michigan
The purpose of this
project is to provide online access to the audio-visual and exercise
materials based on the existing text Intermediate College Korean,
which is composed of a dialogue, a short narrative, vocabulary, and
exercises for each chapter.
Heterogeneity in the Classroom
SUNY at Binghamton
This paper will show how to deal with diverse learners in a classroom that consists of heritage learners. I will be mainly discussing First-Year (Beginning) Korean (83 students at SUNY at Binghamton) in a college setting, but its application extends to K-12 and other levels of Korean instruction. The typical problems that we face at the beginning level of Korean are: (1) no variety of courses is offered, (2) one teacher teaches more than one level of Korean, and (3) diverse learners are cramped into one classroom.
Setting aside all minor problems in this kind of classroom setting, teachers of heritage learners should consider these points. First, teachers need to have a good understanding of the students’ knowledge of their heritage culture, the target language skills that they have already acquired, and any experience with a language other than Korean. In order to be fruitful in teaching heritage learners, a teacher must not only help the students think of their language skills as assets and recognize what they already know, but also motivate each student to fill gaps in language skills. Second, instructional strategies should be set up only after a thorough analysis of diverse learners in order to achieve the prescribed goal. It is generally true that teachers prepare for the course syllabus before they actually meet their students and study their backgrounds. But this paper urges them to make it available afterward. The use of culturally relevant material is also a part of this strategy. Third, different evaluation and assessment procedures are necessary to analyze oral and written tests, followed by monitoring students’ progress.
When curricula, student’s knowledge, and actual practice reflect these considerations, I submit that many of our heritage learners will be motivated to do well. Finally, I will also compare heritage learners with non-heritage learners in terms of their progress and shortcomings using this approach.
Valdes, G. 1995. The Teaching of Minority Languages as ‘Foreign” Languages: Pedagogical and Theoretical Challenges. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 82:4 PP 473-501.
Webb, John and Barbara L. Miller (eds.). 2000. Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices form the Classroom. ACTFL Series 2000. Yonkers, New York.
My Journey on CMC
University of British Columbia
This paper reports what I experienced while participating in discussion on Computer-Mediated Communication tools (CMC). The paper attempts to present my struggle of immaturity, incubation in CMC and moving beyond immaturity in writing English. The writing style that I chose to use is a reflective and personal narrative. Over three-year experience in taking some graduate courses with the use of CMC as a supplement helped to immerse myself into an academic discourse and to stimulate my academic curiosity with zeal. Besides, two-year experience in teaching Korean with the help of CMC made me convinced of the effectiveness of using CMC in a language classroom. My journey with the use of CMC that is described through my recollections, being full of struggles and dilemma, in writing an academic discourse in English makes me ashamed and agitated at the same time. The journey presents how CMC optimizes social practice and SLA.
Technology-Supported Collaborative Korean Language
University of Southern California
This paper will describe a technology-supported Korean language learning project which has been conducted in the EALC 115 (Korean I) class at the University of Southern California during this past spring semester. It will also report the effects of the project on the students' language learning experiences, and raise issues related to using technology in a foreign language classroom.
The project was designed to give students opportunities to practice their language skills by producing technology-supported language learning materials. Moreover, since there are not many audio and video learning materials available for the Korean language in general as well as for the class under study, it is hoped that the students' final products (CD-ROMs containing videos files and audio files) will help future students learning Korean as well as the participating students. For the project, the students on their own developed scripts of various topics, played, directed, filmed, and edited the video footage, and finally will produce CD-ROMs .
The effects of the project have been and will be assessed based on the students' journals, pre- and post-project questionnaires measuring their experience with and attitudes toward using technology, the researcher's class observations, and in-depth interviews with both the course instructor and students. Although the study is not yet finished, the students' overall responses to the project have been enthusiastic, and the project itself has been successful.
Most students reported in their journals and informal interviews that they have been able to refresh and improve their language skills through writing scripts and practicing lines for shooting videos. In particular, most students valued the experience in collaborating with other students (helping and being helped), and expressed their hope to learn more about the Korean language and about producing multimedia CD-ROMs.
Investigating the Acquisition of Korean Particles by Beginning and Intermediate Learners
Eun Joo Kim
Ohio State University
This paper aims to investigate how well Korean particles are learned and perceived by beginning and intermediate learners of Korean through a text revision task. In some previous studies which examined the structural errors made by English-speaking students (Kim, 2000; Kim, 2002; Lee, 1997), it was pointed out that particle-related errors are some of the most frequently observed structural errors made by learners of Korean. In this study, 54 beginning and intermediate learners of Korean (27 beginning and 27 intermediate learners) enrolled in Korean language courses at American universities were tested on a text revision task in which the sentences were manipulated to contain particle-related errors. The task was administered toward the end of an academic year to ensure that the students had enough instruction on the usage of particles. The text was 17 sentences long and there were a total of 14 errors related to particle usage. Additional 3 errors that were not related to particle usage were also included as distracters. Care was taken so that the text did not contain any unknown words to the students. They were asked to revise the text so that it could be improved in accuracy but were not given any explanation as to the purpose of this study. The results of the study revealed that the accuracy rate in the revision of the following types of particle-related errors was significantly lower than that of other types of particle errors:
(1) Use of the object particle -ul/lul with the existence verb issta and epsta.
(2) Use of the locative particles -ey (static) and -eyse (dynamic).
(3) Use of the object particle -ul/lul with the transitive adjectives such as
cohta and philyohata.
(4) Use of the subject particle -i/ka with the transitive verbs of emotion such
When compared to the beginning learners, the intermediate learners were found to perform better but the accuracy rate for the particle errors described above was still low. The revision accuracy on the locative particles -ey and -eyse was lowest for both the beginning and the intermediate learners. Considering that most of the particles are introduced during the very beginning stage of language instruction, the findings of this study suggest that the particles should be given more attention in instruction since it was revealed that the students were not fully aware of the usage of particles even in the final stage of intermediate Korean. This paper concludes by discussing instructional techniques that can enhance the effectiveness of learning and teaching particles.
Language Background, Motivation, and Attitude of Heritage Learners in
KFL Classes at the University of Hawaii at Manoa
Hi-Sun Helen Kim
University of Hawaii at Manoa
As the United States continues to assimilate large number of immigrants who come from different parts of the world, foreign-language teaching professions are now often faced with the challenge of teaching the later generations of immigrants their own heritage languages. They enroll in beginning, intermediate, and advanced college courses in their heritage languages to fulfill language requirements, among other motivations, and often become the largest group of language majors or minors. This is evident in Asian language departments, particularly Korean, in which heritage learners dominate the enrollment. Hence, language teachers of Korean are faced with the challenge of not only accommodating the two different populations, heritage versus non-heritage learners, but also managing a wide variety of language backgrounds and exposure that heritage learners bring to class.
The Korean language has become a special significance as a symbol of cultural and ethnic identity to the Korean Americans. One of the strong motivations in learning Korean is to maintain their mother tongue. To them, losing their heritage language means losing their roots. Furthermore, in maintaining and finding their ethnic identity between the two communities, many factors, such as peers, society, family, education, and personal subjectivity, influence the motivational process.
This paper investigates the extent and variation of language backgrounds, exposure, as well as motivation and attitudes of heritage learners of Korean language in all levels (K101, K111, K201, K301, K401, K481) at University of Hawaii at Manoa (UHM). In achieving this goal, the following research questions have been raised:
With heritage speakers being potential national resource in an increasingly monolingual country, realization of the value of these heritage learners is one challenge and task of language educators and researchers. Due to an urgent demand for a theoretical framework for teaching heritage learners, this paper begins to define the term ‘Korean heritage learners.’ Lastly, the final section will include a discussion on the necessary steps and implications for further research to investigate the linguistic profile of Korean heritage learners, such as their language strengths and weaknesses as well as their language needs that will facilitate them to be successful learners.
Hunmongjahoe: The Pedagogical Implications for Teaching Korean as a Second Language
Jin Kyu Kim
Kongju National University
The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm (1446) is an important basis for research on Korean linguistics and Korean language education. Hangul is known for its simple and scientific nature, but this positive aspect is often countered by the Neo-Confucian background and excessively theoretical orientation of its creation process. Published roughly 80 years after the invention of Hunminjông’ûm (1527), Hunmongjahoe became a valuable ground for addressing the above problems, making enormous contributions to teaching Korean to a large population.
My paper examines the importance of Hunmongjahoe from the point of view of teaching Korean as a second/foreign language, by comparing it with The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm. Specifically, I will discuss the sound values of the Hangul letters and their combination rules. This will reveal that while The Commentaries on Hunminjông’ûm is based on the Neo-Confucian philosophy, Hunmongjahoe aims for pragmatism. An analysis of the basic vocabulary in Hunmongjahoe will also show that the book was designed as a language textbook. Sections on practical usage of Hangul in Hunmongjahoe contain valuable implications for today’s Korean language education.
An Investigation of Acoustic Characteristics of Korean Stops
Produced by Non-heritage Learners
Mi-Ran Cho Kim Andrew J. Lotto
The University of Georgia Washington State University
The present study has two purposes: (1) to identify the acoustic characteristics of the word initial Korean stops produced by non-heritage learners of Korean, and (2) to utilize the findings for the improvement of teaching production of Korean stops to non-heritage learners.
The notion of ‘interference’ from the native language on learning the target language is not new to researchers in the field of teaching second or foreign language. Language learners tend to perceive the target language utterances in terms of the linguistic system of their native language. A comparison of the language learner’s native language with the target language is crucial for explaining the language learner’s difficulty, which often causes foreign accent, or even hinders proper communication. In order to soften or eradicate the foreign accent, the language learner must master the phonetic system of the target language (Carr, 1994). The comparison of the learner’s production with the native speaker’s production is also crucial for identifying the areas of problem that the language learner has.
Acoustic phonetics is a subfield in linguistics in which the actual speech sounds are represented in terms of scientific physical measurements, such as duration, intensity, and amplitude, etc. Although there has been a great deal of research on second and foreign language teaching, not many have presented the importance of precise scientific description of speech sounds produced by the language learners. The present study emphasizes the importance of acoustic description of language learner’s production over the previous rather impressionistic description.
In order to fulfill the second purpose, the results of the first experiment are compared to the results of previous research where the acoustic characteristics of Korean stops produced by native speakers of Korean were measured (Kim, 1994).
Among the consonants, stops are the only consonants which occur in all human languages (Ladefoged & Maddieson, 1996). Yet, stop consonants show a great deal of variation in terms of the airstream mechanism, the state of the glottis, the manner of articulation, and the place of articulation. Each variation is represented in different acoustic features and/or measurements. Korean has three types of stops, tense, lax, and aspirated, while English has two types of stops, which contrast in voicing. Stops occur in three different places of articulation, i.e., bilabial, alveolar, and velar, in both languages. Previous findings show that the three types of Korean stops are distinguished in part by two articulatory variables; closure duration and voice onset time (Kagaya, 1974; Dart, 1987). The fundamental frequency of the following vowel is also associated with Korean stop distinction (Kim, 1994). In contrast, English stops are sufficiently identified in terms of voice onset time (though fundamental frequency also varies with voicing). Several studies indicate that the voice onset time of the voiceless English stop is significantly longer than that of the voiced (Lisker and Abramson, 1964; Zue, 1976; Kent & Read, 1992).
Twelve students from non-heritage intermediate Korean class volunteered as subjects. For data collection, subjects are asked to read a list of sentences which contain six tokens of each of the nine stops, totaling 54 sentences. The tokens are all nouns, which begin with a CV(C) syllable. The vowel is fixed as /a/. In order to make the production more natural, the nouns are embedded in a carrier sentence, “i (this) + kes (thing) + i (nominative particle) NOUN ipnita (is).”, which means “This is NOUN.” Among the acoustic variables which are related to stop consonants, closure duration, voice onset time, and fundamental frequency of the first five glottal pulses are measured using CSpeechSP program (Milenkovic & Read, 1997). For the closure duration, the period of silence between the last glottal pulse of the nominative particle /i/ and the release of the stop burst is measured. Voice onset time is measured from the stop release to the point at which the waveform shows the first sign of periodicity for the following vowel. For the fundamental frequency of the following vowel, the average fundamental frequency of the first five glottal periods is measured from the sound waveform. In order to investigate the statistical importance of the acoustic characteristics of Korean stops produced by non-heritage learners, the split-plot factorial design analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be employed.
The description of non-heritage learner’s Korean production in terms of acoustic measurements is expected to be an excellent guide to the Korean instructors. The visual representation of the speech sounds is also very useful for the language learners, since the language learners often cannot perceive the subtle difference between their productions and those of native speakers. This technique has been used successfully in training Japanese-native speakers to produce the American English /l/-/r/ distinction (Akahane-Yamada, McDermott, Adachi & Takada, 1999). Both Korean instructors and learners of Korean can benefit from the findings based on more precise physical measurements. This paper intends to show the advantage of the acoustic analyses over the previous impressionistic diagnoses of language learner’s production, which are often inaccurate and/or misleading.
Writing as a Facilitating Methodology for Mixed Beginning Classes
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York
Department of Linguistics
Many Korean language teachers and researchers have shown their keen interest in mixed classes which are composed of two different groups: heritage students and non-heritage students. Most instructors are concerned with the difficulty with teaching mixed classes because heritage students and non-heritage students have different language backgrounds. Especially at the beginning level, how to meet different needs and expectations, and yet how to challenge all students are very important issues. On the one hand, the instructors are expected not only to allay non-heritage students’ fears, but also to help them succeed in their studies as well. On the other hand, the teachers need to show heritage students their potential and encourage them to do to the best of their ability. The question then is: Which of the four skills, speaking, listening, reading, and writing, do we emphasize and what approach do we take?
For beginners, the biggest gap between the two groups lies in speaking and listening. If the instructors focus on teaching these two aspects, the gap tends become wider because speaking and listening cannot be learned in a semester or so in classroom settings. The focus of reading may be an option, but once heritage students get used to the Korean sound system, it is not attractive any more. Consequently, I submit that writing is a most viable approach to facilitating and enhancing the two groups’ learning experience.
In order to see whether writing is indeed an appropriate and useful teaching method in this regard, I have collected writing samples and two self-evaluations by students, one at the beginning of the semester and the other at the end of the semester. The writing samples analyzed were from 45 students enrolled in the first semester of the first-year Korean course at the University at Buffalo, The State University of New York during two semesters (Fall 2001 and Spring 2002). The data consisted of six drafts of the writing assignments the students did during the semester (4 x 45 = 180 drafts) plus the two additional writing samples the students wrote occasionally during class activities. Thus, the number of writing samples is 270. Self-evaluations were collected from 100 students in total starting in Spring, 2000.
In this paper, I will present my guidance samples, three types of students’ writing samples (voluntary writing done during class hours, homework assignment, and short writing on their mid-term and final exams), two kinds of self-evaluations as well as the criteria for grading. The way I introduced the steps for writing and guidelines I provided for students changed every semester on the basis of my own experience and students’ feedback. Those changes will be reported as well. According to the results from analysis, I will discuss strengths and weaknesses of teaching writing in beginning classes with mixed students. Differences between the two groups in terms of the mean number of vocabulary and variety of grammar patterns will also be discussed.
This study might be regarded as a teacher’s report on the teaching of writing, not based on any experimental study. However, the results are empirical, and if they are satisfactory and helpful to the students in both groups, this study may have meaningful pedagogical implications for teaching and designing curriculums.
The Effectiveness of Using Music and Songs for Teaching the Korean Language
La Sierra University
The effectiveness of using music and songs for teaching second or foreign languages has been proved by many researchers, such as Nussel’s teaching Italian with music and songs (1991). I have composed and used songs for teaching the Korean language with KLEAR textbooks, and done a case study on the effectiveness of using music and songs for teaching Korean.
The subjects of the study were five students, three men and two women, and one Korean-American student who were born in U.S. and four non-Korean students. The non-Korean students had never learned the Korean language before they came to my class. The songs are composed based on the phrases from the KLEAR textbook Integrated Korean Beginning I according to the intonation and rhythm of the phrases.
The method of this research was a case study in which the classroom was videotaped and analyzed to show the students’ attitudes toward learning the Korean language. Also, the students’ interviews were recorded in the videotape.
This paper will show how to teach the Korean language with music and songs, and demonstrate their effectiveness.
Web-Based Korean LANGUAGE Placement Tests
Lee, D. J., Lee, Y.-G., & Park, S.
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
This paper describes the process of developing web-based Korean placement tests and results of pilot-testing of the tests developed. A research team at the University of Hawai`i’s (UH) Korean Program has finished a one-year project (funded by the Center for Korean Studies at UH) involving developing guidelines for item-writing, writing items based on the guidelines, setting up a testing site, integrating items with sound and images, uploading items into the server, pilot-testing, and conducting data analysis. For the purpose of expanding and translating into a web version the previously developed paper-and-pencil type Korean Language Placement Test (Lee, 2000), two sets of test batteries, one for the lower level and one for the advanced level, had been developed, based on the curriculum of the Korean Program at UH, and translated into KWBT which were pilot-tested at UH in the Spring semester, 2002. The results of data analysis using Rasch methods will be discussed.
Lee, Y.-G. (2000). Designing a Korean language placement test. In S. Kang (Ed.),
Korean Language in America 4 (pp. 181-210). Presidio of Monterey: CA:
The American Association of Teachers of Korean.
The role of corrective recasts in L2 Korean:
Accusative relative clauses and the honorific morpheme -si-
Department of Linguistics, the University of Hawaii, Manoa
A (corrective) recast is defined in the context of reformulation, expansion, semantic contingency, and position (Long 1996, 1999). A recast is a reformulation of a learner’s ill-formed utterance, which gets expanded in some way. However, a recast should be a reformulation that does not change the central meaning of the utterance produced by the learner and that takes place immediately after the learner’s production of the ill-formed utterance.
Child: And how dare him.
Adult: How dare he.
(Saxton, Kulscar, Marshall & Rupra 1998: 706)
The role of recasts (negative evidence) has been disputed in both first and second language acquisition. Some researchers have argued that negative evidence including corrective recasts is not required for language learning (Gordon 1990, Grimshaw & Pinker 1989, Pinker 1989). However, other scholars (Bohannon & Stanowicz 1988, Demetras, Post & Snow 1986) cast doubt on the claim that positive evidence, such as models (target language forms that are provided to a learner not in a corrective manner), is solely responsible for language acquisition. Several recent studies have found that corrective recasts have positive effects on language learning, leading the learner to notice a discrepancy between his/her ill-formed utterance and the recast target language form (Long, Inagaki & Oretega 1998, Saxton 1997).
The present study aims to investigate to what extent corrective recasts are incorporated (reproduced) by English learners of Korean in learning accusative relative clauses (namca-ka mi-nun yeca ‘the woman that the man pushes) and the honorific morpheme -si- (sensaynim-kkeyse nolayha-si-ess-eyo ‘The teacher sang a song.’). Unlike studies that compared the effects of recasts with those of negotiation, topic changes, and topic continuations (positive evidence), the present study focuses on the relative usefulness of corrective recasts and models.
The present study utilized a pretest and two treatment conditions, the recast and the model condition. In the recast condition, target structures were given after the subject’s production while they were provided prior to the subject’s production in the model condition. Each experiment group had five participants (a total of 10 participants) who were enrolled in second and third semester Korean classes in college. Each group received both treatments and was experimented with on both target structures. Seven items were given for each target structure (object relative clauses and the honorific morpheme -si-) in both conditions. An oral picture-description task was designed for the pretest and the treatments were delivered through an elicited production task.
The results show that both models and recasts were successful at eliciting incorporation of the target structures into the participants’ production. All participants in both conditions (except for one participant) produced the target structures more than half of the time. However, in terms of the relative effects of the two treatments, the results show that recasts were slightly more successful at eliciting correct productions for both target structures than models. (Mean scores of object relatives are 4.3/7 in the model condition and 4.5/7 in the recast condition; mean scores of -si- are 4.4/7 in the model condition and 5.3/7 in the recast condition.)
The findings of the present study add support to the claim that recasts as well as models have a facilitative role in second language learning. Furthermore, they suggest that recasts may have a greater effect on enhancing the learner’s existing knowledge of the target structure than models.
Bohannon, J. N., III., & Stanowicz., L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684-689.
Demetras, M., Post, K., & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language 13, 275-292.
Grimshaw, J., & Pinker, S. (1989). Positive and negative evidence in language acquisition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 341-342.
Gordon, P. (1990). Learnability and feedback. Developmental Psychology 26, 215-18.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In WIC. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic.
Long, M.H. (1999). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Long, M.H., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Saxton, M. (1997). The contrast theory of negative input. Journal of Child Language, 24, 139-61.
Saxton, M., Kulsar, B., Greer, M., & Rupra, M. (1998). Longer-term effects of corrective input: an experimental approach. Journal of Child Language, 25, 701-21.
The Implications of Neurobiology for Adult Second/Foreign Language Learning
Department of Applied Linguistics, UCLA)
Krashen’s dichotomy of learning and acquisition of a second language has never been substantiated by any study of neurobiology so far. Even though second language learning takes place in the brain not in anywhere else, information obtained from modern neurobiology has yet to be incorporated into the discipline. Implications from neurobiology for practicing language teachers can be tremendous.
This presentation will explore the neurobiological mechanisms which underlie declarative and procedural knowledge. Second, it will examine how the neural structures subserving these two processes are involved in adult second/foreign language learning. Finally, it will also try to apply the findings of neurobiology to teaching Korean to adult learners in classroom settings.
The cortico-hyppocampal neural circuits subserve declarative learning, which covers our lexical learning. These circuits can become stronger by multiple associations and repetitive activations. The cortico-basal ganglionic neural circuits participate in procedural learning, which is related to the formation and automatization of motor routines such as learning how to play sports and musical instruments and cognitive rules such as grammar and phonology of languages. These neural circuits also become stronger by repetitive activations. However, the two kinds of circuits are mediated by the participation of the amygdala, which participates in appraisal of motivational and emotional significance of events, actions and objects. Neurobiological evidence and arguments will be presented to support the arguments.
In the classroom, second language learning involves explicit instruction and may utilize areas of the brain that are necessary for declarative learning. This paper explores the role of the hippocampus, a structure involved in declarative learning and memory, and concludes that changes in synaptic connectivity are necessary for memory storage.
The utility of TV commercials in teaching culture.
Saekyun H. Lee
Defense Language Institute
The goal of a language classroom is communicative competence, and instruction should include all its components. Communicative competence must go beyond knowledge of the language code to include an awareness of what to say to whom, and how to say it appropriately in any given situation. It thus involves
social and cultural knowledge. In other words, it requires reference to cultural competence, i.e., the total set of knowledge and skills which speakers bring into a discourse situation.
Today the inclusion of culture as part of language education is indisputable, yet teaching culture has been virtually ignored, or has not been fully incorporated into the many foreign language programs in the U.S.
Unfortunately, as of the late 1990s, culture is part of the curriculum in only one-third of the language teacher training programs.
Teaching culture requires multidisciplinary training and good teaching tools. Advertisements, especially TV commercials, can be used as a powerful tool for teaching culture because they provide clues to gender roles, social values, and interpersonal relationships in a stress-free manner. In language classrooms, they also introduce vocabulary not likely to be found in textbooks. In addition, they use colloquial and slang expressions. The highly polished aesthetic surface of advertisements, coupled with their affordability, authenticity, and brevity, makes them an excellent teaching tool.
Yet advertisements are highly complex messages and cultural documents. They demand cross-cultural sensitivity and careful exploration. Teachers and students must become detectives and seek to decipher symbols and any hidden clues, which help them understand the behavioral and thinking patterns related
to the daily life of people in that target culture.
During the presentation, several TV commercials will be played that show and elucidate rapidly changing gender roles in Korea. For instance, Korean women, like their other Asian counterparts, have been perceived in American popular culture to be passive and even subservient. However, in the recent TV commercials I videotaped are seen revolutionary depictions of women that shatter such perceptions. In addition, I will present the features that clearly indicate the rising status of women in Korean society. Useful tips for classroom activities will also be provided.
The Relationship between Motivation Type and Korean Language Achievement
Steven K. Lee, Ph.D.
Hui C. Kim
California State University, Dominguez Hills
The purpose of this study is to examine if there exists a correlation between the motivation type—instrumental and integrative—and Korean language achievement. The study is based on a sample of approximately 150 randomly selected high school students enrolled in Korean language classes in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. A motivation type indicator, a modified version of an instrument developed by Gerard Counihan, will be used to identify the motivation orientation. The motivation type (instrumental or integrative) will be correlated with the students’ grades received in the Korean classes to determine if there exists a significant relationship (using the T Test) between the two groups. Depending on the outcome, the study has important implications in Korean language teaching: To make learning more effective, teachers may need to modify and develop curriculum and instruction that encourages or facilitates students to develop certain motives beyond merely the language activities.
Korean bilingual education issues in public and Korean schools
Steven Lee will present some issues, such as lack of parental support for Korean bilingual education, the decreasing number of students enrolled in Korean schools, the need to examine articulation issues from Korean bilingual classroom to Korean as a heritage language class, etc., and then allow the panelists to discuss their views on these issues. In other words, rather than a formal presentation by each member of the panel, the panel members would engage in a dialogue amongst themselves. At the conclusion of the discussion, the audience would have the opportunity to present questions to or share their views with the panelists.
Guidelines for Item-writing for the Curriculum-Based Placement Test:
Development and Application
Lee, Y.-G., Yuen, S., Kim, H., Ahn, C. S., Yoon, S, Baek, S. B., & Park, S.
University of Hawai`i at Manoa
This presentation describes the process of developing guidelines for item-writing for the curriculum-based placement test and translating those guidelines into the actual item-writing work. The guidelines were developed by a research team at the University of Hawai’i’s (UH) Koran Program. Two sets of guidelines, one for the lower level (KOR 101 – 202) and one for the advanced level Korean (KOR 300 – 400), were developed. The first, or the lower level, guidelines address a question of what prospective students for each level are expected to be able to do in four areas, i.e., listening, reading, vocabulary, and grammar, whereas the second, or the advanced level, guidelines address the same question, but mainly in the area of reading. Principles for developing the guidelines are discussed. Examples of (good and bad!) item-writing are illustrated. Validity issues concerning the use of a curriculum, or textbooks in this case, as a target domain are also discussed.
Use of the Internet resources to teach Business Korean
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
Korea is one of the major trading partners of the Unite States. In 2000 alone, the amount of total trade between Korea and the US exceeded 68 billion dollars. In terms of trading size, Korea is the 7th largest trading partner of the U.S., surpassing Taiwan, Italy and France.
As the size of the trade between Korea and the U.S. gradually increases, the importance of international communication between the two countries has also risen significantly. Unfortunately, however, the listing of Business Korean may be spotted only at a very few of the large number of the institutions that offer Korean either in the United States or in Korea.
Thus, the American businessperson may not have any idea of what style or register is appropriate for various Korean business settings, even though his or her Korean might otherwise be quite fluent. Moreover, the acquisition of Korean business culture is also very difficult without proper training. Therefore, there is an urgent need for designing a good course in Business Korean.
In order to contribute to the teaching of an LSP course in Korean, this paper will discuss my experiences in teaching a Business Korean course at the University of Georgia. More specifically, the focus of the current study will be placed on designing and using the Internet resources to the teaching of college Business Korean.
I will, first, briefly introduce some key information about the nature of the course, including goals and structure of the course, distribution of the students, textbook selection, and the use of other class materials. Then, I will report the procedure and result of five web assignments I have created and conducted for this course. I will illustrate the goals and purposes of each assignment, a detailed procedure and students’ response.
A demonstration of these five web assignments will be conducted during the presentation of the paper.
Teaching Korean in an Integrated Four-Skills Way with Pictures and Maps
Bo Y. Park
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
The presenter will demonstrate how to teach Korean grammar in an integrated four-skills way with pictures and maps. The first part, which is related to causal, exclamatory and quotation forms, will be shown with pictures. The second part involves teaching directions and will be demonstrated with maps.
Part 1: Picture games
Students will form pairs and describe a picture they are looking at that will lead them to use sentences having a causal conjunction. For example, Because it is autumn, the leaves have turned red. After that, one person will write down what his/her partner said. The students in each pair will correct the partners’ errors, if any, in written statements. Then, the students will submit their written corrections to the teacher for perusal. After the teacher returns the statements, each student will report his/her partner’s statement to the whole class, using direct and indirect quotation forms. Next, the students will have another picture presented to them. With it, they will go through the same activities for exclamatory sentences.
Part 2: Map games
Again, the students will be teamed up in pairs. One student in each pair will have a map similar to the one his/her partner has. The student who has the more detailed map will lead his/her partner to some of the places shown on the map from the starting point by giving him/her directions, using such words as “go straight ahead,” “turn right (or left) at the intersection where certain streets meet,” “next to,” etc. After one activity is over, each pair will be given another set of similar maps. The student who followed the directions given by his/her partner will in turn lead the partner to several places on the map. After the speaking activity is over, the students will write down how they found the places. Then, each student will correct mistakes, if any, in his partner’s paper. They will, then, submit what they wrote to the teacher for correction. Each student will report his/her partner’s statements to the class after the teacher returns their statements.
There is a potential problem in the games described above. If there are students whose language skills are too low, the activities cannot be carried out smoothly. If there are such students, the solution is to pair them with students with better language skills. The teacher may also help a ‘mismatched’ pair as well.
It is hoped that this presentation will provide the participants with ample exposure to gain hands-on knowledge on how to conduct integrated four-skills teaching in a meaningful and interesting way. The importance of paired activities in language learning might also be reinforced through this presentation.
Think, work, & talk together: Revisiting cooperative learning
University of South Florida
Cooperative learning is not a new or unfamiliar approach among foreign language teachers. Being one of the familiar “old standbys”, the effectiveness of cooperative learning (CL) has been proved in numerous studies, and the approach gave valuable insights and useful tools for many successful foreign language teachers. The purpose of this teacher training workshop is to offer beginning and in-service teachers an ample opportunity to briefly review the theoretical basis, revisit the basic principles of CL, and have hands-on experience on cooperative learning activities for their classes.
· Contrast between CL and regular groups
· Myth and misconceptions
· Basic elements of CL
· Grouping / role distribution
· Cognitive learning
· Multiple intelligences
· Tying with FL standards
· Activity ideas and practice
Equipments: OHP, TV/VCR, Flip Chart
The comparison between ‘–중에서’ and ‘among’
Shim Woo ill
University of Maryland University College, Asia
In this paper I will discuss how '-중에서' can be translated into English. The reason I have chosen ‘ –중에서’ is that it does not always correspond to 'among' in English. In actuality, '-중에서' may either be translated as other prepositions or omitted altogether, as shown below:
1. 한국음식 중에서 불고기가 제일 맛이 있습니다.
(1) Bulgogi tastes the best of all Korean foods.
(2) Bulgogi is the most delicious Korean food. (omitted)
(3) I like bulgogi better than any other Korean food. (omitted)
(4) Bulgogi is my favorite Korean dish.
2. 저는 과일 중에서 바나나를 제일 좋아합니다.
(1) I like bananas the best of all fruits. (omitted)
(2) The banana is my favorite fruit. (omitted)
3. 가족 중에서 형이 제일 키가 큽니다.
(1) My older brother is the tallest in my family.
4. 우리 학교 학생 중에서 아프리카 학생이 두 명 있습니다.
(1) Of all the students in my school, two students are African.
(2) In my school, there are two African students. (omitted)
The differences between Korean and English data in these examples show that the meanings of prepositions other than ‘among’ need to be explained differently than they are in most dictionaries.
A Review of Research in Korean as a Foreign Language
This paper aims to 1) review studies conducted on teaching Korean as a second or foreign language in the past five years and 2) to make an assessment of the status-quo of research in this area and to provide directions for future research.
Although the Korean language has been taught in American colleges and universities for some time and schools offering courses on Korean have significantly increased, the instructional history of this language is relatively short compared to other languages. As a result, we are faced with more questions than answers, and studies specifically focusing on issues of Korean as a Foreign Language (henceforth KFL) were few until quite recently. The establishment of the American Association of Teachers
of Korean (henceforth AATK) in 1994 was instrumental in promoting Korean language education in general and research on KFL in particular. The Korean Language in America, the proceedings of the AATK’s annual conference and teacher training workshop, is the only publication that deals exclusively with teaching the Korean language in an American context. In fact, it has been a center for teachers and researchers alike to discuss issues and concerns in Korean language education. There has been a substantial growth both in the volume of studies and the scope of investigation within a short period of time. However, my preliminary review seems to suggest that data-driven empirical studies are lacking. In addition, while some topics are better researched, other aspects (e.g. vocabulary teaching, socio-pragmatic aspects, etc.) appear to have been neglected.
In this paper, articles published in The Korean Language in America over the past five years will be reviewed with respect to the topic, method, authorship and findings. Such review will enable us to better understand what needs to be done and will also help teachers incorporate the findings in their teaching. Issues that are pertinent to other less commonly taught languages in a broader perspective will also be discussed.
Motivational and De-motivational Factors of Korean Language Learners at an American University: A Case Study
Jean Sook Ryu Yang
Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
This paper reports the motivational and de-motivational factors of Korean learners in a university in the U.S. I taught Korean language classes in the East Asian Languages and Cultures (EALC) Department at the University of Kansas (KU) for two years from 1999 to 2001. I believe that it is of utmost importance to find out learner variables related to students’ motivation, needs, interests, and attitudes. In particular, I had been interested in motivational orientation (reasons for taking Korean). My previous survey on 135 Korean learners in seven colleges, I showed that (a) heritage was the most influential variable; (b) integrative orientation was more important than instrumental orientation; and (c) desire to use language, interests, and travel were important motivational orientations as well.
Although most of the students were highly motivated in some ways, some students were not really successful language learners: (a) several students dropped out during the semester; (b) some students did not continue with the next level; and (c) some students showed poor study habits, attitudes, and performance, although they passed and were enrolled in the next class. Therefore, to find out their motivational and de-motivational factors, I conducted semi-structured interviews with fourteen students at the end of the academic year 2001.
Students who took Korean from 1999 to 2001 at KU participated in this study. Twenty-six students participated in free responses. Ten students’ writing samples were selected because they wrote about motivational orientation. Finally, 14 students participated in the interviews in May 2001.
Data Collection Procedure
I asked the students to write free responses including reasons for taking Korean for about 10 minutes at the first class in 1999 and 2000. During the semesters, several students wrote their essays about motivational orientation to fulfill writing project requirements. In May 2001, I interviewed 14 students about motivational and de-motivational factors. Each interview took from 20 to 30 minutes, and English was used. All the data from free responses and writing samples were typed, and the audiotaped interviews were transcribed. The data were analyzed qualitatively. In addition, the frequency of students’ reactions in each sub-category was quantitatively analyzed.
(1) Heritage was the most important variable. But heritage students’ language ability ranged very widely from near native fluency to not knowing even a word.
(2) Many Korean-American students who are already good at listening and speaking wanted to learn more reading and writing in the Korean classes. They took Korean to find or confirm their ethnic identities, better communicate with Korean parents and relatives, travel to Korea, and get jobs related to Korea.
(3) Half-Korean students with mixed ethnic background were unique in terms of learning Korean. They have been somewhat exposed to Korean culture including food and values. However, their language ability is very limited since their mothers tended to speak English at home. Many of them perceived Korean as their mother’s language but did not have opportunities to learn so that they want to learn at college to understand better about their maternal heritage. They perceive Korea, Korean people, and culture favorably, although they were not able to understand them fully.
(4) Although non-heritage students are still quite few, the number is steadily growing. Most of them had clear reasons, such as Tae Kwon Do learning, friendships, marriage, etc.
(5) Students liked interesting, meaningful, valuable, and varied activities during classes.
It is extremely important to find out learner variables related to students’ motivation, needs, interests, and attitudes. A good grasp of students’ motivational and de-motivational factors can help educators better understand students. Although a majority of Korean programs cannot provide advanced classes or two-track courses, administrators and educators have to understand our students, their needs and expectations. The findings from this research can shed light for teachers and administrators to develop the curriculum and instructional models.
Teaching Korean Kinship Terms to Foreign Learners of the Korean Language
Korea University, email@example.com
The Korean language is well-known among foreign learners for its heavy dependency on the pragmatic and sociolinguistic contexts. Kinship terms have been known to be one of the most complicated and difficult features to learn and to teach. It is because of the high level of sensitivity to the social and interpersonal relationships involved in the use of the terms. The social and interpersonal relationships can be rephrased as ‘the relationship of power and solidarity.’
Kinship terms can be divided into two groups depending on the directionality of address: i.e. terms of address and terms of reference. Another crucial factor that makes the use and learning of the terms annoyingly confusing is that there are cases where there are no set terms available. A term for the same person has to be changed to another one in different social interpersonal situations. Following are some typical examples.
(1) Various terms of address and reference depending on social and interpersonal situations
This study aims to discuss various factors involved in the use of different terms of address and reference. These factors include age, gender, marriage, the length of relationship, existence of a third person, social status, and so on. These interest and intertwine to make the system complicated and difficult to acquire. The second goal of this study is to provide a handy guide to the complicated system so that both learners and the teachers of Korean can get a better grasp of the system.
 It is not restricted to foreign learners of Korean. Even native speakers, especially among the young generation, the use of appropriate terms is proving to be increasingly more difficult.
한국어 유의어 교육 연구
조 현 용(경희대학교)
한국어의 어휘를 의미 관계에 따라 나누어 보면 꺚?퓸, 반의어, 다의어, 상의어·하의어, 동음이의어, 이철자 동음이의어꽬 구분하여 볼 수 있다. 이 중에서 교사가 수업에 가장 어려움을 겪는 것은 유의어이다. 단순히 유의어를 제시하는 것은 어렵지 않으나 각각의 용법과 의미 차이를 설명한다는 것은 매우 어려운 일일 것이다.) 酒入郁子 外(1991:226-270)의 꺙倂뮌括 일본어교사에게 자주 하는 100가지 질문 가운데에 문항 73번부터 87번까지 15개가 어휘에 관한 질문이었다. 그 중에 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87꽵 유의어의 의미 차이에 관한 질문이었다. 그리고 73, 74, 75꽩 어휘 구조, 다의어는 78, 79, 이형태는 82 독음에 관한 것은 83, 84꽴눼. 유의어의 의미차이에 대한 질문이 40%로 나타났는데, 이는 유의어의 의미 차이에 대한 외국어 학습자의 학습 욕구를 알 수 있게 해준다.
한국어 교육 현장에서 유의어는 어휘력을 확장시키는 중요한 수단으로 자주 사용되고 있다. 하나의 어휘를 제시하고는 그 어휘의 유의어를 자세하게 제시해 주는 방법이 그것이다. 이러한 방법은 고급단계로 갈수록 더 많이 사용되게 되며 학습자 중에서도 이러한 학습법을 선호하는 경우도 있다.) 주로 일본이나 중국에서 온 학생들은 이러한 유의어 제시를 선호하는 편이다. 주로 학습자 활동보다 개인 학습을 선호하는 태도와도 관련이 있을 것으로 보인다.
그러나 단순한 유의어의 제시는 어휘의 양만 늘릴 뿐 사용 능력을 늘리는 것이라고 볼 수 없다. 사용 능력이 전제되지 않는 어휘의 양은 효과적인 것이라고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 유의어의 제시 방법이나 사용 능력 향상을 위해서 교사의 주의가 더욱 필요하다고 하겠다. 특히 유의어의 의미 차이를 설명하는 표현이 제시하는 어휘보다 어려운 경우가 많은 문제도 해결되어야 할 것으로 본다.
본 논문에서는 우선 유의어 교육이 이루어지는 현황과 문제점을 한국어 교재들을 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다. 그리고 유의어의 의미차이를 설명할 수 있는 어휘를 선정해 보려고 한다. 여기에서 선정되는 어휘는 교육용 기본어휘를 바탕으로 하고 있다. 활동을 중시하는 유의어의 교육 방법과 이를 이용한 실제 수업의 예도 살펴보기로 하겠다.
2. 유의어 교육의 현황 및 문제점
유의어는 비슷한 의미를 가진 어휘를 일컫는 말이다. 완전히 같은 의미의 어휘 관계인 동의어는 존재하지 않는다는 입장에서 유의어라는 용어를 본고에서 사용한다. 유의어와 반의어를 이용한 어휘 교수는 전통적으로 가장 널리 어휘를 교수하는 방법이었으며, 현재도 많은 교육 현장에서 유의어를 이용한 어휘 확장을 시도하고 있다. 그러나 유의어를 이용해서 어휘교육을 할 수 있도록 도와주는 기본적인 자료가 거의 존재하지 않았다. 이는 국어 교육에서도 마찬가지의 상황이어서 국어 교육의 연구성과를 이용하기에도 어려운 점이 있다.) 김광해(1995:332)는 국어 교육에서 유의 반의 관계를 이용해서 교육할 수 있는 기본적인 자료가 거의 없었음을 지적하고 있다.
따라서 외국인을 위한 유의어 사전 및 용례집의 개발이 시급하다고 할 수 있다. 또한 유의어가 모든 상황에서 치환되어 사용되지 않는 경우가 있으므로 각 유의어간의 차이점도 명확히 제시하여야 할 것이다.) Hayakawa 편(1994)에는 1000개 이상의 표제어와 6000개 가량의 유의어를 싣고 자세히 각 상황에서의 차이를 설명하고 있다. 한국어에도 유의어의 상황에 따른 명확한 차이를 설명해 줄 사전이 절실히 필요하다. 특히 유의어의 의미 차이에 언어적 직관이 없는 외국인을 위한 사전 편찬이 있어야 할 것이다. 모국어 화자에게는 간단하다고 생각되는 유의어 차이도 외국인에게는 구별이 매우 어려울 수 있다. 또한 모국어 화자용 유의어 사전의 경우는 설명하는 내용이 어려워서 외국인이 이해하기에는 어려운 점이 많다.
특히 한국어에는 고유어와 한자간의 유의어 및 높임어에 의한 유의어가 발달해 있으므로 그 차이점을 분명히 밝혀 놓아야 할 것이다. 다양한 한자어 유의어도 학습자에게는 사용을 어렵게 하는 요소이다. 실제로 모국어 화자의 경우도 한자어 사이의 유의어는 제대로 구별하지 못하는 경우가 많다.
중국이나 일본 등 한자권 학습자의 경우를 교육할 때는 유사한 한자 어휘가 한국어와 의미나 용법에 차이를 나타내는 경우가 있으므로 주의해야 한다. 石田敏子(1995:124)는 일본어의 예를 들면서 중국어와 일본어의 한어 사이의 의미의 차이는 때때로 오용과 오해의 원인이 된다고 한다. 특히 중국어와 일본어 사이에는 유사 어휘뿐만 아니라, 같은 어휘가 완전히 다른 의미·용법을 가지기 때문에 학습자도 교사도 이해했다는 함정에 빠질 우려가 있다고 지적하고 있다. 이는 한국어교육에도 마찬가지로 지적될 수 있는 문제점이다. 이제까지 중국어권이나 일어권의 학습자가 정확히 내용을 이해하였을 것이라고 판단하였던 것이 오류이었을 가능성도 배제할 수 없는 것이다.
각 등급에 따라 유의어 어휘 범위를 한정시켜야 할 필요성도 제기된다. 교사들이 어휘를 교육할 때, 유의어를 지나치게 많이 제시하는 경우를 보게 된다. 유의어를 지나치게 확장하는 것은 학습 부담을 주는 것이므로 피해야 한다. 특히 용법의 차이를 설명하지 않고 어휘만을 제시하는 것은 학습자에게 사용에 혼동을 줄 수 있다.) 坂本英子 外(1964:90)에서도 유의어를 가르칠 때에는 의미의 공통점을 다루는데, 중요한 것은 오히려 남겨진 차이점에 대해 생각하게 하는 것이라고 하고 있다.
이는 교재 개발과도 관련이 깊은 것으로 꺚?퓸 출현꽴 대한 계획도 마련되어야 할 것이다.
유의어를 교수하는 방법으로 어휘만을 제시하는 것은 유의어 사용능력을 신장시킨다기보다는 단순히 어휘를 암기하게 한다는 단점이 있다. 따라서 대화전환간에 동의어를 사용하게 하는 등 상황과 문맥 속에서 교육하는 것이 유의어의 사용능력을 신장시키는 방법이 될 것이다.) McCarthy(1984:15)는 학습자가 대화 전환간에 있어서 동의어, 하의어, 또는 반의어의 담화적 잠재성을 이용하도록 장려할 것을 제안한다. 생성 실습을 위한 연습방법 중에 하나는 다음의 사용을 포함한다. ㉠ 동의어에 의한 동의 ㉡ 반의어에 의한 동의 ㉢ 덜 구체적인 단어(상의어)에 의한 동의 ㉣ 보다 구체적인 단어(하의어)에 의한 동의.(Carter, R(1987), Vocabulary, 원명옥 역(1998:236) 재인용)
고급과정으로 갈수록 학습자들은 유의어의 의미차이를 구별하는 문제에 대해서 많은 질문을 하게 된다. 유의어를 구별하여 사용하는 것이 매우 어렵기 때문이다. 따라서 유의어의 의미차이를 설명해 놓은 학습서의 개발도 필요한 과제라고 할 수 있다.
3. 의미 차이 설명을 위한 어휘 선정
현재 국어 교육에서 유의어 설명은 대상 어휘보다 상위 언어가 더 어려운 경향이 있다. 또한 유의어의 의미 차이 설명을 위해서 언어학의 의미 자질이 사용되기도 하나 이는 외국인 학습자에게는 더 큰 학습의 어려움이 된다.
Rudska 등은 The Words You Need(1982), More Words You Need(1985)를 통해서 단어들은 개별적으로 또는 짝연합으로 도입하기보다 동일한 의미장에 속하는 단어들의 수정된 구성성분 분석이나 목표 어휘항목의 일반적인 연어를 들어내는 분석을 하는 격자 방법에 의해 어휘 증대를 시도하였다(Carter, R(1987) 원명옥 역(1998:230-231) 재인용). 이에 대한 비판 중에서 사용된 상위언어나 용어를 통제하기 어렵다는 문제는 설명을 위한 어휘 선정의 중요성을 보여 준다. 격자를 이용한 방법은 교사가 격자를 불변한 틀로 보지 않고 학습자들의 추가적인 자료에 비추어 검증할 수 있도록 제시할 때, 이러한 분석적인 기법이 보다 효과를 갖기 위해서는 설명에 기본적인 어휘를 선정하는 작업이 필요하다. 선정은 우선 한국어 교육용 기본 어휘를 바탕으로 하여야 하며, 그 중에서도 개념의 차이를 분명히 드러낼 수 있는 어휘들을 선정하여야 할 것이다. 물론 설명을 위한 어휘의 수는 가능한 한 적어야 할 것이다.
Goddard & Wierzbicka(1994), Wierzbicka(1996)의 연구에서 제시하고 있는 의미원소는 자연언어 중에서 의미를 표현할 수 있는 기본 어휘들의 모형을 보여 주고 있다. 본 연구에서는 Goddard & Wierzbicka(1994), Wierzbicka(1996)에서 제시한 의미원소를 조현용(2000b)에서 선정한 한국어 교육용 기본어휘와 비교하는 과정을 통해 유의어 의미 차이 설명을 위한 어휘를 선정해 보도록 하겠다. 이는 실제로는 유의어의 의미 차이뿐만 아니라 많은 어휘를 쉽게 설명하는 방안이 될 것이다. Goddard & Wierzbicka(1994)에서 제시한 의미원소를 보완한 Wierzbicka(1996: 35-36)를 중심으로 살펴보도록 하겠다.) Goddard & Wierzbicka(1994)에 제시된 의미원소는 다음과 같다. [실재:I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING, PEOPLE/심적 술어:THINK, SAY, KNOW, FEEL, WANT/한정사 및 수량사:THIS, THE SAME, OTHER, ONE, TWO, MANY, ALL/행위 및 사건:DO, HAPPEN (TO)/상위-술어: NO, IF, CAN, LIKE, BECAUSE, VERY/시간 및 공간:WHEN, WHERE, AFTER, BEFORE, UNDER, ABOVE/분류 및 부분화(taxonomy and partonomy): KIND OF, HAVE PARTS/평가어(evaluators and descriptors):GOOD, BAD, BIG, SMALL]
실재(Substantives) : I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING, PEOPLE
한정사(Determiners) : THIS, THE SAME, OTHER, SOME, MORE
수량사(Quantifiers): ONE, TWO, MANY(MUCH), ALL
심적 술어(Mental Predicates): THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL, SEE, HEAR
발화(Speech) : SAY
행위 및 사건(Actions and Events) : DO, HAPPEN
평가어(evaluators) : GOOD, BAD
기술어, 묘사어(descriptors) : BIG, SMALL
시간(Time) : WHEN, BEFORE, AFTER, A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME, NOW
공간(Space) : WHERE, UNDER, ABOVE, FAR, NEAR, SIDE, INSIDE, HERE
부분화 및 분류(Partonomy and Taxonomy) : PART (OF), KIND (OF)
상위-술어(Metapredicates) : NOT, VERY
접속어(Interclausal Linker) : IF, LIKE, BECAUSE
상상과 가능(Imagination and Possibility) : IF......WOULD, CAN, MAYBE
단어(word) : WORD) Wierzbicka(1996)에 새로 첨가된 어휘는 짙은 활자로 표기하였다.
이상의 어휘는 모두 56개이다. 한국어 교육을 염두에 두고 어휘를 번역해 보면 다음과 같다.
나, 너, 누구, 무엇, 사람들, 이, 같은, 다른, 조금, 더, 하나, 둘, 많다, 모두, 생각하다, 알다, 원하다, 느끼다, 보다, 듣다, 움직이다, 있다, 살다, 말하다, 하다, 일어나다, 좋다, 나쁘다, 크다, 작다, 때(언제), 전, 후, 오래, 금방(잠깐), 지금, 어디, 아래, 위에, 멀리, 옆, 안, 여기, 부분, 종류, 아니다, 아주, 만약, 같다, 왜냐하면, 할 수 있다, 아마, 단어(말)
이들 중에는 실생활에서의 사용빈도를 생각한다면 그다지 중요하지 않은 것들이 포함되어 있다. 그러나 이 어휘들을 이해했을 때, 단어의 의미를 분명하게 알 수 있고, 유의어의 의미차이를 구별하는 데 도움이 된다면 초급단계부터 적극적으로 교육할 필요가 있다.
4. 유의어 수업의 예
외국인 학습자가 수업시간에 유의어의 차이를 해결하는 수업방법을 간단히 소개해 보도록 하겠다.
우선 학습자들을 소그룹으로 나누어 의미차이를 생각해 보게 한다. 이 때, 학습자의 활동을 유발하여 의사소통 기능을 신장시키는 효과가 있다. 그러나 학습자가 의미 차이에 대하여 접근하지 못하는 경우에는 교사가 주로 같이 쓰는 말을 제시해 줄 수 있다. 의미 차이에 대한 학습자 그룹 토론을 거친 후 발표하는 시간을 갖는다. 그리고 발표 후 부족한 부분을 교사가 설명한다. 단, 학습자의 수준을 고려하여 이해가 가능하도록 설명을 준비하여야 할 것이다.
학습자들은 유의어의 의미차이에 대해 많은 관심을 가지고 있고, 실제로 어휘 사용의 오류도 다수 나타난다. 따라서 반드시 유의어 의미차이에 관한 교사용 자료와 학습자를 위한 자습서가 마련되어 있어야 할 것이다.
곽지영(1997), 외국인을 위한 한국어 어휘 교육, 말 제22집, 연세대학교 한국어학당.
김광해(1995), 어휘연구의 실제와 응용, 집문당.
김광해(1998), 유의어 의미비교를 통한 뜻풀이 정교화 방안에 대한 연구, 선청어문 26.
김익환(1999), 효과적인 영어 어휘 지도 방법, 영어 교수끜戟 방법론, 한국문화사.
김중섭·조현용(1998), 북한의 한국어교육 연구, 한국어교육 제9권 1호, 국제한국어교육학회.
박동호(1998), 대상부류에 의한 한국어 어휘 기술과 한국어교육, 한국어교육 제9권 2호, 국제한국어교육학회.
신현숙(1998), 한국어 어휘교육과 의미 사전, 한국어교육 제9권 2호, 국제한국어교육학회.
이화자(1999), 어휘지도의 효율적인 방안, 영어 교수끜戟 방법론, 한국문화사.
임지룡(1998), 어휘력 평가의 기본 개념, 국어교육연구소 학술발표회.
조현용(1999), 한국어 어휘의 특징과 어휘교육, 한국어 교육 제10권 1호, 국제한국어교육학회.
조현용(2000a), 게임을 활용한 한국어 어휘교육, 국제한국어교육학회 춘계발표회.
조현용(2000b), 한국어 어휘교육 연구, 박이정 출판사.
최길시(1998), 외국인을 위한 한국어교육의 실제, 태학사.
허동진 외 편저(1987), 조선말 동의어 사전, 연변인민출판사.
石田敏子(1995), 日本語敎授法, 大修館書店.
水谷信子(1997), 日本語敎育槪論, 放送大學敎育振興會.
酒入郁子 外(1991), 外國人が日本語敎師によくする100の質問, 株式會社 バベル
倉八順子(1996), 語句의 指導, 日本語學 15-8, 明治書院.
坂本英子 外(1964), 語彙敎育, 有限會社むぎ書房.
Carter, Ronald (1987), Vocabulary, 원명옥 역(1998), 어휘론의 이론과 응용, 한국문화사.
Goddard(1998), Semantic Analysis, Oxford University Press.
Goddard & Wierzbicka(1994), Introducing Lexical Primitives,
Hayakawa 편(1994), Choose the right word, HarperCollins Publishers.
Nation, P.(1990), Teaching and learning Vocabulary, Heinle & Heinle Publisher.
Wierzbicka(1996), Semantics - Primes and Universals, Oxford University Press.
University of California, Santa Barbara
한국어는 음양오행설이라는 문화 속에서 태어났으며 한글은 음양오행설에 의하여 만들어진 글자다. 자음은 5음에 의거하였고 모음은 음양 천지인의 삼재론에 의거하여 창제되었다. 그럼에도 불구하고 거의 두 세대에 걸친 정치권의 편협한 국수주의로 인한 한자 교육의 등한시와, 약 100년 이상에 걸친, 근래 한국에 들어 온 서양종교의 민속문화와 민속종교에 대한 미신화 내지는 배척화 의식으로 인하여, 음양오행학과 관계되는 어휘나 생활용어들이 일반인들에게 제대로 이해되지 못하였다. 한글은 지금으로부터 500년밖에 되지 않지만 그 때와 지금의 한국민의 철학사상에는 지대한 변화와 차이가 있음을 볼 수 있다. 陰陽五行學은 거의 모든 일상생활의 기저였고 한글이 음양오행설에 의하여 창제되었다는 사실조차 인식하지 못하고 있음을 보아왔다.
본고에서는, 한글 그 자체가 음양오행설에 의하여 창제되었음에도 불구하고 그 근원적인 이론이 제대로 이해되어지지 않은 체 전 세계로 확산되어 쓰여지고 있음을 안타까이 생각하여, 몇 한국어의 본래의 뜻을 살펴보고자 한다. 현금에는 한국에서 한자교육이 초등학교 3학년부터 시작될 정도로 전통이해에 적극적이지만 이를 가르치고 있는 교사들은 오히려 다시 한자를 배워서 가르쳐야 하는 실정이기도 하다. 본고에서는 주역의 연원과 한자의 연원이 한국이라는 이론과 함께 한글 創製와 陰陽五行說에 대하여 살펴 본 뒤, 陰陽五行說과 관계되는 한국어의 예를 들어 그 사전적 의미를 살펴보고자 한다. 예를 들면, 陰陽五行, 宮合, 合宮, 陽宅과 陰宅, 子正과 正午, 運命, 運數와 命數, 運命과 宿命, 四柱八字 등이 그것이다.
깊고 바른 것은 반드시 계속되어야 한다. 현대화와 세계화는 유물론에 치우치고 직관과 통찰이 없이는 이루어질 수 없다. 음양오행설을 三才論으로 이해할 수 있고 음양오행설의 심오한 이치로서 한글과 한국어를 쓰고 말한다면, 이야말로 전통을 계승하면서 현실을 가장 충실히 사는 진정한 21세기인이라고 하겠다. 꼭 陰陽科의 과거를 치기 위한 것이 아니라도 한국인 자신을 이해하기 위해 음양오행설이야말로 현한국인이 택할 수 있는 인생철학의 지름길이라 믿는다.
한국어 교재에서의 과제의 개념 및 활용 방안
1970년대 이후 언어 교육의 대상이 특정 맥락이나 상황에서의 적절한 언어 사용 능력으로 변화하며, 언어 사용의 기능적 측면인 과제(task)가 언어 교육에서 주요한 개념으로 대두되었다. 과제의 도입을 통한 언어 사용 능력의 배양은 특히 1980년대 들어 언어 능력 평가와 관련해 숙달도(proficiency) 개념이 사용되면서 더욱 중요하게 되었다.
한국어 교육에서도 1990년대 중반 이후 과제 수행 중심의 교수가 강조되며, 이와 관련해 많은 연구가 이루어지고 ‘과제 수행 중심의’라는 이름이 달린 한국어 교재가 다양하게 개발되고 있는 것이 현실이다. 그러나 여러 한국어 교재가 ‘과제 수행’을 강조하고 있기는 하나, 그 내용을 구체적으로 살펴보면 대부분의 ‘과제’가 의미 표현이나 기능 수행에 초점을 둔 의사소통 활동이 아니라, 문법이나 구조와 같은 형태 교육을 위한 기계적 반복 훈련법의 변형에서 크게 벗어나지 않음을 알 수 있다.
이에 본 연구에서는 의사소통적 과제의 개념과 필요성을 살펴보고, 수업(혹은 하나의 단원)이라는 보다 넓은 틀 안에서 의사소통적 과제가 차지하는 위치에 대해 살펴보고, 의사소통적 과제가 다른 과제나 연습 유형들과 어떻게 통합되는지에 대해 살펴보고자 한다.
시청각 교재를 활용한 효율적인 수업의 모형
-인지 언어학적 접근을 중심으로-
언어 연구자를 포함한 인지심리학자들은 인간의 뇌(brain)가 아닌 마음(mind)이 어떻게 작용하는가에 관심을 가졌다. 언어와 인지 능력과의 관계를 더 잘 이해하기 위해서는 언어능력과 가장 밀접하게 연관되어 있는 과정에 관심을 두면서 인간의 정신 과정을 인지 심리학자들은 어떻게 생각하는지 개관해 볼 필요가 있다. 이 고찰을 통해 시청각적 교육의 효율성을 알아보고 이 방법을 실제 수업에 도입함으로써 내재화되어 적절한 상황에서 반응할 수 있도록 하는 수업 방법을 제시해 보고자 하는 데 이 논문의 목적이 있다. 이러한 연구의 필요성과 목적이 제 1장 서론이다.
제 2장에서는 ‘언어와 인지 과정의 관계’라는 제목 하에 우선 언어와 인지에 대한 역사적 고찰을 통해 선행 연구를 알아보고, 인지심리학적 측면에서 본 언어 기억 절차와 그 이론을 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 통해 어떤 기억의 절차가 효율적인 학습 방법이 될 수 있는지도 살펴보겠다.
제 3장에서는 시청각 교육을 어떻게 한국어 학습에 연결시킬 것인가에 대해 알아보기 위해 우선 시청각 교육의 기능과 역할을 알아본 후 그것의 인지 언어학적 근거를 살펴보겠다. 시청각 교재, 특히 T.V나 영화는 동적인 현장감과 생생한 인상을 줌으로써 학습자들에게 강한 자극을 줄 수 있다. 이러한 방법들이 유효 적절하게 사용된다면 문장이 어떤 상황에서 어떻게 쓰여져야 하는 실제 상황에서의 의사소통을 위한 훌륭한 학습이 될 수 있을 것이다.
또한 인지 언어학적 측면에서 시청각 교육의 효율성에 대한 평가를 토대로 그림, T.V 드라마, 영화 등의 시청각 교육이 실제 한국어 학습 현장에서 활용할 수 있는 방안을 검토해 보고자 한다. 이러한 학습 방법의 한 모형으로 실제 현장 교수 학습에서 활용한 방법을 제시하고자 한다.
한국어 교사용 지도서의 개발과 그 구성원리에 대한 연구
김 재 욱 (경희대학교 한국어학과)
현재 여러 언어교육이론과 각 한국어교육기관의 교과과정에 따른 외국인을 위한 한국어 교재가 다양하게 출판되어 있다. 그러나 이러한 한국어교재를 효과적으로 활용할 수 있는 교사용 지도서가 각 한국어교육기관 내부적으로 운영되고 있거나 또는 마련되어 있지 않아 학습현장에서 한국어를 가르치는 교사들이 각 교재를 활용하려고 할 때에는 교재 개발자의 의도를 파악하지 못한 채 그 교재를 이용하게 되어 교재의 개발의도와는 다른 방향으로 활용되거나 혹은 정확한 활용방법을 몰라서 그 활용 효과가 반감되고 만다.
이에 본고에서는 외국인을 위한 한국어 교재개발과 아울러 각 교재의 개발 목표와 학습 현장에서의 활용방법 등을 제시하는 교사용 지도서의 개발이 동시에 이루어져야 그 교재의 개발효과가 발휘될 수 있음을 주장하면서 교사용 지침서의 구성원리와 이에 따른 교사용 지도서의 모델을 제시한다.
이를 위하여 현재 범용교재로 개발되어 있는 재외동포용「한국어 1」을 샘플로 삼아 교사용 지도서의 모델을 제시한다. 이 교재는 재외동포용으로 개발되었고 또한 말하기, 듣기, 읽기, 쓰기의 언어의 4가지 기술에 대한 학습과 문화학습이 동시에 이루어지도록 구성되어 있으나 교사용 지도서가 아직 마련되어 있지 않아 교재에서 제시한 다양한 학습방법을 교사가 일일이 마련하기에는 다소 벅찬 편이다.
기존 국제교육진흥원에서 발행한 한국어 교사용 지도서가 있지는 하나 그 내용이 기존 국어 교과서의 교사용 지도서의 체제나 내용과 크게 다르지 않아 정규 국어교사교육을 이수하지 못한 한국어 교사에게는 실제 활용할 때에 교재의 각 부분을 어떻게 학습현장에서 활용할 지에 대한 세밀한 부분에 대해서 어려운 점이 많았다.
본고에서는 우선 교사용 지도서의 목표를 재외동포를 위해 개발된「한국어 1」의 보다 효율적인 활용을 위하여 학습현장에서 이 교재를 어떻게 활용할 것인가에 대한 교수방법과 이 교재를 보다 효율적으로 운용하는 데에 필요한 정보를 제시해주는 지도서 개발을 목표로 제시한다.
이를 위한 교사용 지도서의 구성원리는 다음과 같이 제시한다.
1)「한국어 1」을 위한 교육 일반에 관한 이론적 기반을 제공한다.
- 재외동포교육의 목적과 한국어교육에 관한 일반적 원리, 그리고 「한국어 1」교재의 집필 의도 및 각 과의 학습목표, 구성원칙 등을 제시한다.
2) 전체 구성은「한국어 1」에서 의도하는 학습목표를 달성할 수 있도록 하는 설명서와 더 나아가 교재에서 부족한 부분을 보충해주는 보충교재의 역할을 겸할 수 있도록 구성한다.
3) 이를 위하여 「한국어 1」일러두기에서 밝힌 학습목표에 부합하도록 교재의 각 내용에 대한 교수방법을 제시하고 이를 보다 효율적으로 운용할 수 있는 선택활용방법을 제공한다.
4) 지도서 구성은 실제 수업 진행순서에 따라 구성한다.
- 교사가 교실에서 이 교재를 가지고 실제 수업을 진행할 수 있도록 수업의 진행순서에 따라 지도서를 구성한다.
5) 활용방법은 되도록 상세하고 자세하게 제시한다.
- 한국어 문법이나 한국어 교육에 관한 전문적인 지식을 갖고 있지 않은 재외 한글학교 교사의 특성을 감안하여 본 지도서대로 진행하더라도 최대한의 학습효과를 거둘 수 있도록 교육 절차와 방법 등 필요한 정보를 최대한 제시한다.
6) 설명은 최대한 충분하게 제시한다.
- 다른 참고서나 별도의 자료 등을 참고하지 않아도 수업이 원활하게 진행될 수 있도록 문법, 문화 등에 대한 설명을 충분하게 한다.
7) 각 과의 항목마다 [유의]사항과 [선택]사항 등을 제시한다.
- 교사가 수업 도중 특별히 유의하여야 할 사항이나 학습자가 오류를 범할 수 있는 발음이나 문법 등의 사항에 대한 [유의]사항을 제시하여 미연에 학습자의 오류를 방지하고, 교재에서 담지 못한 사항에 대한 보충사항을 제시하거나 학습자의 수준에 따른 다양한 활용방법을 보여줄 수 있는 [선택]사항을 제시하여 학습의 효과를 보다 높일 수 있도록 배려한다.
8) 각 과의 항목마다 교재의 영역별 분야와 쪽수를 제시하여 교사가 어느 과의 어느 쪽에서 수업을 시작하는지, 그리고 어느 영역을 하는지에 따라서 쉽게 지도서를 찾아볼 수 있도록 구성한다.
9) 또한 이와 아울러 교사용 지도서에는 한국어 1 교재가 주로 해외에서 활용되고 있는 점을 감안하여 학습에 필요한 단어카드 등의 자료와 학습활동 후 학생들에게 과제로 제시할 수 있는 숙제에 관한 자료도 아울러 제시하여 수업자료 준비에 따른 교사의 부담량을 줄일 수 있도록 한다.
이와 아울러 본고에서 제시한 교사용 지도서의 내용에 실제 학습현장에서 수업을 진행하는 교사들의 다양한 의견을 담아내어 이후에 개발될 교재「한국어 6」까지의 교사용 지도서에 충실히 반영하여 보다 한국어 교사들에게 필요한 교사용 지도서로 만들어 나가야 할 것으로 생각한다.
과제 중심의 고급반 수업 구성에 대한 연구
인간이 이룩해 온 문명의 발달은 세계를 하나로 묶어 주었고, 많은 정보를 실시간에 안방에 앉아서 접할 수 있을 만큼 우리가 접하는 정보의 양과 속도는 엄청나다. 모든 것이 정보 통신으로 연결되고, 세계 각 지역의 실상이 생생히 안방까지 전해지는 시대를 살고 있는 상황에서 다문화를 접하는 것은 어찌 보면 필연적인 것이라고 해석해야 옳을 것이다.
여타 외국어에 비해 커다란 주목을 받아오지 못하던 한국어가 이제는 시대적인 흐름과 한국의 국제적인 위치 부상으로 점차 세계 전지역으로 확산되어 나가는 추세이다. 또한 한국어를 세계화하려는 여러 가지 노력과 연구가 지속적으로 이루어지고 있는 점도 이러한 흐름과 무관하지 않은 것으로 보인다. 더욱이 근자에 들어 다양한 교재가 출간되고 있고, 한국어 교육 분야에 대한 연구가 더욱 활발해지고 있는 것은 무엇보다도 반가운 일이다.
그러나 한 가지 아쉬운 점은 한국어를 어느 정도 구사할 능력을 가진 중·고급 수준의 학습자들을 위한 교재 개발이나 연구가 초급 학습자들을 위한 연구에 비해 그다지 많은 주목을 받지 못하고 있다는 점이다. 물론 한국어 교육에 대한 본격적인 연구가 시작된 역사가 비교적 짧은 편이고, 초급 수준부터 단계적으로 연구할 필요가 있는 것도 사실이다. 그러나 학습자의 숙달도에 맞는 다양한 교재 개발과 그에 적절하고도 효과적인 교육 방법에 대한 연구 또한 소홀히 할 수 없다. 이에 본 연구에서는 고급 수준 학습자들에게 제시할 만한 과제에 대해 알아 보고, 과제 수행 모형에 따른 수업 진행 방식에 대해 고찰해 보았다.
한국어 평가 담화의 특징
-한국어 교사들의 담화분석을 중심으로-
이동은 (서울대학교 언어교육원)
이 논문은 한국어 평가 담화의 여러 특징을 고찰하는 것을 그 목표로 한다. 최근 한국어 담화의 여러 특징을 규명하고자 하는 시도가 많아지면서 여러 방법론들을 기반으로 한국어 여러 형태의 담화(multi-modal discourse)에 걸친 연구가 활발하게 진행되고 있다. 이 점을 감안하면 한국어 교사들의 평가 담화를 분석하는 것은 여러 면에서 의미 있는 연구가 될 것이다. 한국어 평가 담화 전반에 걸친 특징들을 확인할 수 있다는 점 외에도, 구체적으로는 한국어 교육의 현장에서의 담화의 모습을 알 수 있다는 점이 있을 것이다.
이 글에서는 담화 분석의 6가지 하위 방법론 중 Goffman(1981)의 프레임웍에서 비롯되어 Schiffrin(1993)을 중심으로 한 상호작용사회언어학적 분석(interactional sociolinguistic analysis)과, 최근에는 Muntigl & Turnbull(1998), Gruber(1998, 2001), Hutchby(1996) 등의 사회심리학적 화용론(social psychological pragmatics)의 테두리 안에서 논의를 이끌어 나가려고 한다.
분석에 쓰인 자료는 한국어 남녀 경력교사, 비경력 교사 4명이 학생들의 시험 결과를 놓고 평가한 토론을 녹음하여 전사한 것이다. 경력 교사는 한국어 교육에서 5년 이상의 경험자로, 비경력 교사는 2년 이하의 경험자를 대상으로 하였다. 분석 결과, 경력 교사들과 비경력 교사와의 토론에서 주목할 만한 차이가 드러났다. 토론자들은 상대방이 제기한 문제를 극복할 필요에 직면하게 되는데 토론이라는 프레임에서 화자들은 특정 위치를 조율하면서 이러한 불일치를 운용하는 과정을 보여주었다. 본고에서는 이를 정량적(quantitative), 정성적(qualitative)인 두 차원으로 분류해 고찰하고자 하였다.
교사들은 정량적인 면에서는 말차례 가지기(turn-taking)의 횟수, 불일치의 네 가지 유형인 무관성 주장(irrelevancy claims), 도전(challenge), 부정(contradiction), 반박(counter claims)의 횟수, 그리고 구체적 언어표현의 전략으로 가정 구성(hypothetical construction)과 추론(reasoning)의 횟수를 파악하였다. 그 결과 경력 교사들과 비경력 교사들 사이에 현저한 차이가 드러났다. 말차례가지기의 횟수는 경력교사가 앞서는 것으로 나타났지만 불일치를 등급적으로 구분했을 때 언어 표현에서 갈등의 정도가 높은 무관성주장과 도전이 비경력교사의 경우 더 빈번했다. 다음은 비경력 교사가 제시한 도전 형태인데 (c)에서의 갈등을 해소하기 위해 (e)에서의 교정(remedies)으로 불일치의 폭을 줄이고 있음을 알 수 있다.
(a)함: 그 학생이 사실 제일 안 되던 학생이었어요.
(b)김: 다른 학생보다 아주 엄청 열심히 했어요. 정말 예쁘다, 예쁘다 하고 제가 칭찬을 많이 해 주고 쓰기는 그 모양인가 어제도 농담처럼..
(c)함: 발음반 선전하시는 거 아니세요? 선생님.
(d)김: 근데 왜 학생에 대해서 얘기하라고 그랬는데 말을 오래 저거하나 모르겠네.
(e)함: 아, 근데 장윤자 씨는 정말 많이 좋아졌어요.
정성적인 분석에서는 의견과 이야기의 제시라는 다른 담화 전략적 프레이밍 기술을 보여주었다. 경력 교사들은 학생 개개인의 개인적 특성과 학업 능력을 동시에 고려하는 전체적인 평가의 빈도가 높았다. 반면 비경력 교사들은 학생들의 한국어 능력에 초점을 두고 정확한 평가에 중점을 두는 것으로 나타났다. 이에 대한 프레이밍 전략으로써 경력 교사의 경우에는 이야기의 도입이 주목할 만하며 비경력 교사의 경우는 이야기(story)보다는 의견(opinion)이 더 빈번히 나타났다. 언어적 특징에 있어서 경력 교사의 경우, 과거시제 선어말어미 “었” 과 “야 하다” 조동사의 결합 형태가 비경력 교사의 경우는 “야 하다” 의 형태가 두드러짐으로써 이야기와 의견의 변별적 사용을 뒷받침하고 있다. 이는 경력 교사의 경우 자신의 경험을 바탕으로 사건을 확대(zooming out), 축소(zooming in)하는 프레이밍을 빈번히 제시하며, 비경력 교사의 경우는 판단(judgment)이 우세함을 알 수 있다. 다음은 경력 교사의 프레이밍에서 거시적 평가가 나타난 (a)의 예와 비경력 교사의 미시적 판단에 의한 평가어가 나타난 (b)의 예이다.
(a)장: 여기는 제가 볼 때는..
(b)박: 4급 이상이에요.
(c)장: 작문 굉장히 정확하게 잘 잘하고 거의 조사 쓰는 건 뭐 어떻게 체득을 한 것 같더라구요. 조사는 전혀 제가 손댈게 없어요.
(d)박: 단어가 중국식으로 가끔 써서 그렇지 다른 면에서는 수준이 있는 학생.
(e)장: 공부에 대한 열의 이런 것이 대단하거든요. 뭐 이 여가 시간 이런 거 공부를 유학을 왔으니까 공부만 해야 된다 이런 스트레스 비슷한 걸 가지고 있더라구요. 아무튼 성실하고 다 갖추고 있더라구요. 선생님 말씀처럼 4급 이상이라고 볼 수 있구요.
두 번째 정성적 특징은 여성-남성간 담화에서 불일치를 다루는 방식에서 공손표현 적용이 다름을 알 수 있었다. 동료와의 유대성(rapport)을 유지하기 위한 의도와 자신의 발화가 질의 격률(maxim of quality)에 위배되지 않아야 한다는 것이 상충되는 경우 여성 교사의 경우와 남성 교사의 두 경우 모두 유대성을 증진하려는 여러 담화 전략이 돋보인다. 즉 성차에 의한 담화전략은 다른 형태의 담화보다 제한적으로 사용된다고 할 수 있다. 이러한 경력교사와 비경력 교사가 보여주는 담화 특징을 고려한다면 한국어 교육 현장에서 남성, 여성 교사의 담화가 학업 성취도에 미치는 영향이 파악 가능하고, 앞으로의 적극적이고 정확한 학생의 평가와 효과적인 한국어 교육에 공헌할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.
핵심어: 상호작용사회언어학, 프레임, 프레이밍, 조율, 불일치, 의견, 이야기, 공손표현
송경숙(1996), 한국어와 영어 대화의 질문에 대한 상호작용사회언어학적 분석, <담화와 인지> 제3권 163-189.
이동은(2000), 토론의 상호작용사회언어학적 연구 -갈등과 그 운용을 중심으로-, 서울대학교 인문대학 언어학과 박사학위논문.
한상미(2001), 외국어로서의 한국어 교육에서의 교사말 연구 -유도 발화 범주의 교사말 유형을 중심으로-, <한국어 교육> 제 12권 2호.
Barnard, Christopher(2000), Protecting the Face of the State: Japanese high school history textbooks and 1945, Functions of Language 7.1:1-35.
Brown, P. & S. C. Levinson(1987), Politeness: Some Universals on Language Use, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Clift, Rebecca(2001), Meaning in Interaction: the case of actually, Language 77 No. 2.
Gruber, Helmut(2001), Questions and Strategic Orientation in Verbal Conflict Sequences, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1815-1857.
Dornelles, Clara & Pedro M. Garcez(2001), Making Sense of Nonsense: fabrication, ambiguity, error and clarification in the organization of experience in ordinary conversation, Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1707-1730.
Goffman Erving(1981), Forms of Talk, Univ. of Penn Press.
Grimshaw, Allen(ed.)(1990), Conflict Talk,: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Heiskala, Risto(1998), From Goffman to Semiotic Sociology, Semiotica 124: 2111-234.
Hutchby, Ian(1996), Confrontation Talk: arguments, asymmetries, and power on talk radio, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
McCarthy, Michael(1987), Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Muntigl, Peter & William Turnbull(1998), 갅onversational Structure and Facework in Arguing_, Journal of Pragmatics 29: 225-256.
Schiffrin, Deborah(1990), The Management of a Cooperative Self during Argument: the role of opinions and stories. In Grimshaw(ed.) Conflict Talk: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Schiffrin, Deborah(1994), Approaches to Discourse, Blackwell.
Sohn Ho-Min(1999), The Korean Language, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Tannen, Deborah(1999), The Argument Culture: stopping America's war of words, Ballentine Books, NY.
Tannen, Deborah(2001), I Only Say This Because I love You: how the way we talk can make or break family relationships throughout our lives, Random House.
효율적 한국어 학습자 사전 구축을 위하여
박 동 호(서울대학교)
본 연구는 외국어로서의 한국어 교육을 위한 사전 구축을 목표로 하여 이 유형의 사전 구성에 있어서의 주요 국면과 문제점들에 대해서 교육사전학적 입장에서 이론적·방법론적 기초를 정립하는 것을 목표로 한다.
사전이라고 하는 특이한 유형의 텍스트와 언어교육의 관계에 대해서 프랑스, 영국, 미국, 독일 등의 국외학계에서는 이미 오래 전부터 이에 대한 학술적 연구를 체계화하고자 하는 노력을 경주해 왔고 그러한 노력은 교육사전학 또는 학습사전학이라는 새로운 분야를 탄생시키기에 이르렀다. 한국에서도 1980년대부터 사전 연구에 대한 관심이 싹텄고, 근자에 들어서는 새로운 한국어 사전들의 간행과 그것의 중요성에 대한 각성이 맞물려 사전에 대한 학술적 연구 성과들이 활발히 발표되고 있다. 이상과 같은 과정을 통해 사전학, 사전편찬학적 연구성과도 상당히 축적되었으며 한국어 학습 사전에 대한 개념과 사전편찬 작업의 의의를 새롭게 되새기는 전기가 마련되었다. 그러나 이와 같은 변화에도 불구하고, 외국어로서의 한국어 교육을 위한 학습자 사전에 대한 국내 학계의 연구성과는 아직 상대적으로 충분하지 못한 실정이며 그 발간 역시 극히 한정되어 있는 실정이다.
본 연구에서는 앞선 사전들의 연구성과를 토대로 하여 외국인 사용자를 위한 한국어 교육사전 구축을 위한 이론적·방법론적 틀을 모색하고자 한다. 이상과 같은 목표 하에서 본 연구는 사전 텍스트의 전체적 구성과 그것의 각 국면, 즉 거시구조, 미시구조 등을 세밀히 분석·검토함으로써 한국어 교육사전의 구성모형을 제시할 것이다. 어떠한 구조와 특성을 갖는 사전이 외국어로서의 한국어 교육에 보다 효율적이며 체계적으로 도움을 줄 수 있을까? 이 문제에 대한 해답을 제공해 보려는 것이 이 연구의 목적이다.