This study examines honorific usage in the Korean language, which reflects Korean culture and society, particularly the use of the prefinal ending –si-in subject honorification by Chinese learners of Korean, and analyzed the results with data f... This study examines honorific usage in the Korean language, which reflects Korean culture and society, particularly the use of the prefinal ending –si-in subject honorification by Chinese learners of Korean, and analyzed the results with data from survey responses by Korean native speakers for comparison. Taking the existent literature on the subject as its basis, the study divided Chinese and Koreans into two groups based on their differences in how they used or did not use the prefinal ending –si- in subject honorification, observing in which situations it was used frequently and in which situations errors in its usage occurred. The goal of its findings was to aid in the instruction and learning of honorific usage in Korean language education. In order to do this, the first chapter describes the study’s goals and its necessity, as well as the issue posed by the study and its research methodologies. The second chapter reviews the systems of honorific usage in Korean, applying the use of past, present, and future tenses in school grammar as well as using the term ‘subject honorification.’ It also describes the characteristics and usages of the main component in realizing subject honorification, the prefinal ending –si-. The usages of –si- were categorized and mainly into honorification, direct honorification, indirect honorification, honorification with -itta-, relative honorification, and non-honorific usage. This study analyzed the usage of –si- which is a concept most easily confused by speakers whose first language is Chinese, a language that does not have an honorific system as complicated as that of Korean. Also, the literature review also discusses the existent literature on three areas of research: the meaning and syntactic function of –si- , the actual usage and teaching pedagogies of –si-, and comparative research of Korean and Chinese languages. The third chapter describes the survey and analysis methods of the study. First, this study collected data with the discourse-completion task (DCT) survey widely used in discursive studies. The strength of using DCT surveys is that is can collect data on the usages of –si- according to appropriate situations; thus the DCT survey was selected as it can set up societal factors in collecting data on the usage of –si-. The fourth chapter presents the study’s survey questions and the procedure of analysis. First, it analyzes the differences in how –si- is used or not used and its frequency by Chinese learners and Korean native speakers. Next it examines the usages of –si- according to three societal factors. Finally, it analyzes which situations the two groups use -si- correctly and in which situations they make errors in its usage. The results are then reviewed in the fifth chapter, and discussed in short as follows: First, there were instances where the Chinese group used it infrequently or made errors using it in the school or workplace in the situational analysis of –si- usage. Although the Korean group used –si- frequently, the Chinese group used –si- much more frequently than the Korean group in households or stores. There were also different frequencies of usage by both groups in analyzing for factors. The study then analyzed the errors that occurred in using –si- for each situation. There was a lack of awareness of –si- being required in -kkeso- to express the degree of honorific. Another was not using –si- when the situation absolutely demanded it. In public places like the workplace, it is the rule that –si- is always used no matter who the listener is when speaking about a target that must be honored. However, in the setup situation, both groups omitted–si- in many responses. The importance of this research was to boost interest and research on subject honorification in Korean language education, which tends focus on target honorification. However, as the study lacked many survey participants and the DCT questions were set up artificially, the differences on how –si- is actually used according to a variety of factors and in the survey questions is a limitation of this study. ，韩语论文网站，韩语论文题目 |
