The target that Korean language learners want to achieve is the ability to communicate confidently and build relationships with Korean speakers. However, the Korean language has a highly developed honorific system and many different kinds of terms of ...
The target that Korean language learners want to achieve is the ability to communicate confidently and build relationships with Korean speakers. However, the Korean language has a highly developed honorific system and many different kinds of terms of address. Therefore using appropriate honorifics and terms of address according to different circumstances and contexts must be an important skill for a Korean language learner. Thus this study focuses on the terms of address using ‘ssi’ which are broadly used in Korean language education. It also reveals how the terms of address using ‘ssi’ are actually used in exchanges between Korean native speakers. Through this, the ultimate goal of this study is to suggest the following: the broad usage of 'ssi' terms of address should be reconsidered and a wider variety of terms of address should be given in the dialogs and situations presented in Korean language education.
In chapter 1, the necessity and goal of this study are checked and the object and method are established. Terms of address are the words used to call the listener of the dialog and are distinguished from terms of designation or summoning. Many previous studies have pointed this out and tried to distinguish them thoroughly. However, since they overlap in everyday language, there are difficulties to study them distinctly. Therefore, in this study, terms of designation or summoning are not strictly distinguished. The subject of this study is any terms that can be used for referring to the listener while a conversation is taking place.
In chapter 2, former studies are reviewed. These studies suggested that ‘ssi’ terms have been mainly chosen as the common or public terms of address. But this study comments on this traditional view and claims that the usage of ‘ssi’ is primarily as a supplement to more common terms of address. Several studies have pointed out the unnecessarily high frequency of ‘ssi’ terms of address in Korean textbooks and this study agrees on this point and tries to suggest improvements.
In chapter 3, the survey questionnaires are made based on the theories and hypothesis from chapter 2. In other words, speakers consider different criteria when choosing the 'ssi' terms of address depending on whether the scene is public or private. In public scenes, the presence of government authority and the titles of listeners matter, while age, formality and intimacy are considered in private scenes. Since kinship nominals are almost exclusively used as terms of address between relatives, this interaction is not a subject of this study.
In chapters 4 and 5 the survey answers are analyzed. In chapter 4, 5 questionnaires were looked over to inspect how 'ssi' terms of address were used in public scenes. The results show that in a specific public scene where government authority was applied, 'ssi' terms of address were naturally accepted. In a general public scene, which means a non-government work environment, the use of a listener’s title was more widely accepted as a term of address than using ‘ssi’, unless the listener did not have any title. Furthermore, if a speaker persistently used ‘ssi’ terms of address even when the listener had a proper title, it could cause offense.
In chapter 5, 5 questionnaires were looked over to inspect how ‘ssi' terms of address were used in private scenes. The results showed that ‘ssi’ terms of address are mainly used before the participants have built up any kind of relationship or intimacy. Furthermore, the influence of a formal setting was relatively weaker than the existence of intimacy. The questionnaires presented 16 kinds of situations and listeners and it was shown that blind dating was the context where ‘ssi’ terms of address were most frequently used. In addition, when a speaker chose a term of address, ‘ssi’ terms were selected to address a listener who is older in order to show respect or courtesy. However, as a listener, to be addressed with ‘ssi’ felt rude or offensive. Thus, a double standard exists between speakers and listeners concerning the proper usage of ‘ssi’ terms of address.
Finally, in chapter 6, the meanings and limitations of this study are shown. In the public scene, especially in the context of government authority, ‘ssi’ terms of address are broadly accepted while in working environments ‘ssi’ terms of address can supplement the lack of an addressee’s title. In private scenes, before any established relationship between strangers has been built up, ‘ssi’ terms of address can be used. However, after they share intimacy other terms are preferred, for example, kinship nominals are preferred to address older listeners and names are preferred to address listeners of the same age or younger.
Therefore, in Korean language education, to apply the usage of Korean terms of address more properly it is necessary to use titles as terms of address in working scenes and kinship nominals or names in private, intimate scenes. Since the method of this study was through a survey questionnaire, there can be inherent limitations. The reason ‘ssi’ terms of address were overly present in the survey responses was basically that it was implicitly suggested through overexposure. In addition, and counter-intuitively, nicknames barely appeared in the survey answers.
참고문헌 (Reference)
|
