Writing differs from speaking in that not only the writer’s linguistic knowledge, such as grammar, but other elements such as background knowledge and cognitive ability can produce interference. It is said that a good written work involves this kin...
Writing differs from speaking in that not only the writer’s linguistic knowledge, such as grammar, but other elements such as background knowledge and cognitive ability can produce interference. It is said that a good written work involves this kind of plurality in elements, namely those that give cohesion to the text.
Accordingly, in order to improve the learner’s ability to communicate, we see that the text linguistic concept of cohesion must be applied. Focusing on the conjunctive relationships seen in Halliday & Hasan’s (1976) conjunctive devices, in order to analyze texts written by learners in their L1 as well as those written in Korean, an analytic framework of text cohesive conjunctive devices in Korean, English, and Chinese was chosen.
Also, using this analytic framework comparative analysis of texts written with Korean, English, or Chinese as a native language and texts written in Korean by Chinese and English L1 learners was performed. The results make it clear that a learner’s existing experience (and education) writing in their native tongue exerts an influence on their writing in a foreign language such as Korean. It was found that Native Korean speakers use additive and adversative relations at the about the same degree of frequency, whereas English L1 speakers use the adversative, and Chinese L1 speakers use the additive more often in their writing.
The additive, causal, adversative, and temporal relations are types of text cohesive conjunctive relationships and can be more broadly split into the categories of logical and temporal relations. However the primary devices used to develop an argument in a text are the logical relationships of the additive, causal, and adversative. The analytic focus of this is argumentative text, and among the naturally-occurring conjunctive devices appearing in such texts, if we are to ignore causal relations which appear most commonly, learners are typically able to develop their arguments using additive and adversative relations. Accordingly, the fact that in texts written by English L1 learners in Korean as well as their native tongue emphasize the adversative, and those written by Chinese L1 learners emphasize the additive suggests that the learner’s linguistic and socio-cultural background undoubtedly influences the L2 language.
Accordingly, for the educational goal of increasing communication ability, in order to show a measurable increase in Korean writing ability it is necessary to examine how the learner’s original linguistic and cultural background is reflected in their written work. Therefore writing education curriculum and materials should reflect this point of view. However, looking at present day writing education, it is made up of primarily the process and action of writing, and does not take into account understanding of language structure or writing conventions that reflect linguistic and cultural background.
Conjunctive adverbs and endings which have a particularly large effect on the cohesiveness of a text are simply shown as vocabulary and grammatical concepts. However, taking into consideration a learner’s language, social, and cultural background, the conventional usage of conjunctive adverbs and endings naturally occurring in texts written by Korean L1 speakers that appears in educational curriculum and materials is presented as a strategy or something that can be learned. Consequently, instructors must be aware ahead of time the differences in the learner’s original usage of conjunctive devices and language perception from their L1. If they can do this then they will be able to guide students in the production of cohesive, overall coherent and natural-sounding Korean texts.
，韩语毕业论文，韩语论文题目 |
