Understanding the Use of 'Com' as a Politeness Marker in Korean Language Discourse
Korean discourse often utilizes 'com' as a discourse marker with hedging functions to mitigate face-threatening acts. This study explores the perception and production of 'com' among Korean as a Foreign Language (KFL) students at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. It delves into the pragmatic aspects of 'com' in reducing and increasing illocutionary force, emphasizing its role in negative politeness strategies and indirect requests. Analysis shows the frequency and distribution of 'com' usage in different language learning levels based on data from KLEAR Beginning 1 and 2 textbooks.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Perception and Production of com of KFL Students University of Hawai i at Manoa Hye Seung Lee
Introduction 1. Korean com is commonly characterized as a contracted form of an adverb of degree cokum which means a little or a few in English. Com as a discourse marker (DM) is widely known as a politeness marker with a hedging function to mitigate face threatening acts. The use of com is closely related to communication strategies in Korean society. Only a few studies have been done from the perspective of L2 education (Ceng, 2005; Se, 2006). Com appears often in Korean textbooks even without any appropriate explanations of its function and use. pragmatic fossilization : the phenomenon by which a non-native speaker systematically uses certain forms inappropriately at the pragmatic level of communication (Romero Trillo, 2002, p. 770). 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Pragmatics of com 1. Reduction of illocutionary force 1.1 Semantic qualifier 1.2 Speech act qualifier 1.3 (Fixed expressions) 2. Filler 2.1 Hesitation 2.2 Searching for words 2.3 Filled pause 3. Increase of illocutionary force 3.1 Requesting marker 3.2 (Attention getter)
Reduction of Illocutionary Force 1. Negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1978) a. It minimizes the imposition that the FTA effects. b. Linguistic devices such as hedges on illocutionary force are used to realize it. Hedge a. A hedge is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected (Brown & Levinson, 1978, p.145) b. linguistic expressions which weaken the illocutionary force of a statement (Watts, 2003, p.169) c. It is a cross-linguistic tendency that diminutives qualify illocutionary force (Jurafsky, 1996). 2.
Reduction of Illocutionary Force (contd) 3. Com as a hedge a. Sohn (1985, 1999): integral part of indirect request b. Koo (2004) mitigation is one of the most important politeness strategies. com is the most frequent expression used for mitigation. 58.96% of the politeness strategies were accomplished by the three most frequent expressions: ci an-h-ta not be , com, kes kathta seem, appear . c. Semantic qualifier and speech act qualifier
Com in KLEAR Beginning 1 and 2 Discourse marker Number of com Adverb a little Lesson Others in requests please mitigation L3 3 2 1 L4 7 6 1 L5 4 4 L6 2 2 L7 7 1 4 2 L8 4 1 3 L9 7 1 6 L10 2 1 1 L11 32 28 4 L12 5 4 1 L13 1 1 L14 16 13 3 L15 3 1 2 total 93 2 (2.2%) 53 (57.0%) 36 (38.7%) 2 (2.2%)
Perception and Production of com of KFL students Purpose 1. To identify the overall competence of Korean DMs among KFL students 2. To draw attention to the lack of education of DMs and encourage its integration into the Korean language education Research questions 1. Do KFL students perceive com as politeness marker in terms of its use and location? 2. Do KFL students produce com in requesting sentences? 3. Is there difference between HLs and NHLs in their perception and production?
Test Methods Participants 1. 10 native Korean speakers, from Seoul, in their 30s, as the baseline data 2. A total of 84 KOR201 students from fall 2008 to present (43 HL & 41 NHL) 3. Qualification of a HL a. One or both parents are Korean who speak the Korean language with the student. b. One or more of the grandparents are Korean who speak the Korean language and have lived with the student at any point of the student s life.
Materials -Production Test- 1. 2. Fill in the blank speech bubbles Total 7 blank bubbles (5 related to requesting & 2 distracters)
, . .
Materials -Perception Test- 1. 20 multiple-choice questions 2. 5 questions related to the use of com 3. 5 questions related to the location of com 4. 10 distracters
Perception Test Sample 1. It is winter time. You are at the classroom. Somebody came in but left the door open. How would you ask the person to close the door? . . Use of com 2. Your roommate is watching TV and the sound is too loud. How would you ask your roommate to lower the volume? ? ? Location of com
Perception Test Table 1. The number of correct responses for the perception test on the use of com Number of correct answers Average Score Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 % Correct HL (n=43) 42 (97.7%) 35 (81.4%) 33 (76.7%) 32 (74.4%) 27 (62.8%) 33.8 78.6% NHL (n=41) 34 (82.9%) 32 (78.0%) 26 (63.4%) 31 (75.6%) 21 (51.2%) 28.8 70.2% Table 2. The number of correct responses for the perception test on the location of com Number of correct answers Average Score Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 % Correct HL (n=43) 34 (79.1%) 39 (90.7%) 22 (51.2%) 24 (55.8%) 30 (69.8%) 29.8 69.3% NHL (n=41) 36 (87.8%) 37 (90.2%) 21 (51.2%) 22 (53.7%) 34 (82.9%) 30.0 73.2%
Average Correct Com Perception By Student Type By Type of Question Usage Use Location HL NHL 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% HL NHL Usage Use Location
Production Test Table 3. The number of com on the production test Number of com (per student*) Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Total NS (n=10) 8 (0.8) 12 (1.2) 6 (0.6) 10 (1.0) 9 (0.9) 45 (0.9) HL (n=43) 68 (0.32) 22 (0.51) 15 (0.35) 10 (0.23) 11 (0.26) 10 (0.23) NHL (n=41) 35 (0.17) 10 (0.24) 11 (0.27) 5 (0.12) 2 (0.05) 7 (0.17) * The proportion of occurrences of com per student.
Average Com Production Per Student Native Speaker Heritage Non Heritage 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Production Test Table 4. The number of correct usage of com on the production test Number of com (per student) Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Total Error Rate* NS (n=10) 8 (0.8) 12 (1.2) 6 (0.6) 10 (1) 9 (0.9) 45 (0.9) 0% HL (n=43) 22 (0.51) 14 (0.33) 9 (0.21) 10 (0.23) 9 (0.21) 64 (0.30) 5.88% NHL (n=41) 9 (0.22) 10 (0.24) 4 (0.1) 2 (0.05) 6 (0.15) 31 (0.15) 12.00%
Avg. Correct Com Production Per Student Native Speaker Heritage Non Heritage 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
Discussion 1. Result 1. Perception test 1) Both HLs and NHLs perceived the politeness function of com and its proper location very well. 2) There were little differences in terms of the correct recognition of com between HLs and NHLs. Production test 1) Both HLs and NHLs had a low rate of producing com, compared to NSs. 2) HLs production rate is twice that of the NHLs , but only 1/3 that of the NSs . 2.
Discussion (contd) 2. Attribution High rate of peception The amount of exposure to com s frequent presence in requests seems to allow them to recognize the function and syntax. (e.g. family, Korean community, textbook, teacher, etc.) Gap Low rate of production 1) There is no formal instruction about how to use com. HLs used incorrect spellings of com in the correct locations. (e.g. , , ) HLs used com in the wrong loccation. (e.g. .) 2) KFL students don t have the chance to practice the use of com in the classroom. HLs know specific expressions better than NHLs. (e.g. .)
Suggestion and Conclusion 1. Reducing illocutionary force can be a useful strategy of politeness that is critical in achieving communicative competence for language learner. 2. In order to bridge the gap between students perception and production, com as a politeness marker should be taught in the classroom. 3. Textbook should include appropriate formal instruction about com as a politeness marker. 1) Introducing com as a chunk with a cwu-sey-yo verb in a requesting sentence will be helpful for the learners. 2) A detailed gloss of com must be provided, for example, sort of, kind of, or please .
Production Test Table 4. The number of correct location of com on the production test Number of com Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Total NS (n=10) 8 (0.8) 12 (1.2) 6 (0.6) 10 (1) 9 (.9) 45 (.9) HL (n=43) 22 14 9 10 9 64 NHL (n=41) 9 10 4 2 6 31 Table 5. The number of correct spelling of com on the production test Number of com Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Total HL (n=43) 16 13 9 10 9 64 NHL (n=41) 10 10 5 2 7 34
