Understanding of Korean Honorifics by L2 Korean Learners in Australia: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective

Jeong, Woojeong; Lee, Narah

doi:10.30961/lr.2022.58.3.223

Lang. Res. 58(3):223-245

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2022.58.3.223

Article

호주의 한국어 학습자의 경어법 이해에 대한 사회화용론적 접근

정우정¹, 이나라¹^,^†

Understanding of Korean Honorifics by L2 Korean Learners in Australia: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective

Woojeong Jeong¹, Narah Lee¹^,^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹퀸즐랜드대학교

¹The University of Queensland

^†Corresponding Author: 조교수(Lecturer) 언어문화학부(School of Languages and Cultures) 호주 퀸즐랜드 대학교(The University of Queensland) Gordon Greenwood Building (32) The University of Queensland St Lucia QLD 4072, Australia E-mail: narah.lee@uq.edu.au

ⓒ Copyright 2022 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Nov 01, 2022 ; Revised: Dec 05, 2022 ; Accepted: Dec 26, 2022

Published Online: Dec 31, 2022

ABSTRACT

The Korean language has an established honorific system that reflects the Korean society’s hierarchical and relational nature, where respect for elders and individuals of higher social status must be shown through language (Brown, 2015). This cultural aspect poses significant challenges to L2 Korean learners. Taking a socio-pragmatic perspective, this study explored how L1 English speakers living outside the target language society comprehend and apply the honorific system when speaking in L2 Korean. The study was conducted with eight L1 English speakers learning Korean in Australia. All eight participants completed a survey revealing their motivation for, first impression of, and biggest hindrance in learning Korean. Next, seven of them were interviewed concerning how they conceptualised, perceived, and used Korean honorifics. The survey and interview data analysis showed that the participants appeared to have a subjective attitude towards the application of honorifics instead of considering the listener’s relational status even when the honorific system had been learned and mastered for a considerable period. Although the participants were learning Korean while living outside the Korean society, which makes it challenging to understand honorifics or establish conversational concepts completely, they recognised honorifics as an important part of the Korean language; however, this understanding was overpowered by their cultural identity as “Australians.” The findings suggest that an L2 speaker is not a target-like object unconditionally accommodating socio-pragmatic elements but rather a fluid speaker exercising subjectivity and autonomy.

Keywords: socio-pragmatic perspectives; Korean honorifics; L2 Korean; politeness; Korean learners in Australia

References

Bastos, J. L., Duquia, R. P., González-Chica, D. A., Mesa, J. M., & Bonamigo, R. R. (2014). Field work I: Selecting the instrument for data collection. Anais brasileiros de dermatologia, 89(6), 918-923. https://doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20143884 .

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Breugelmans, S. M., Chasiotis, A., & Sam, D. L. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press .

Blanco, C. (2020). 2020 Duolingo language report: Global overview. Duolingo. https://blog. duolingo.com/global-language-report-2020/ .

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006, 2006/01/01). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa .

Brown, L. (2011). Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. John Benjamins Publishing Company .

Brown, L. (2015). Honorifics and politeness. In L. Brown & J. Yeon (Eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics (pp. 303-319). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111837 1008.ch17 .

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press .

Byon, A. S. (2001). The communicative act of requests: Interlanguage features of American KFL learners (Publication Number 3030170). Ph.D., University of Hawai'i at Manoa. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Ann Arbor .

Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003 .

10.

Byon, A. S. (2006). The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 2(2), 247-276. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2006.013 .

11.

Cho, C. H. (1979). yengewa kwukeuy honorifics pikyosesel [A comparative introduction to honorifics between English and Korean]. The Journal of English Language & Literature, 72(0), 325-340 .

12.

Cho, C. H. (1980). Pragmatics and rules of politeness [Pragmatics and Rules of Politeness]. Language Research, 16(1), 1-11 .

13.

Cho, K. A. (2003). ilponin hankwuke haksupcauy yocheng(request) hwahayngey kwanhan yenkwu: hankwukin hwacawa ilponin hankwuke haksupcakanuy taycolul thonghay [A study of the request speech acts of Japanese learners of Korean : A contrast between native Korean speakers and Japanese Korean language learners] Master thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul .

14.

Choo, M. H. (1999). Teaching language styles of Korean. The Korean Language in America, 3, 77-95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42922234 .

15.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press .

16.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press .

17.

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press .

18.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Aldine .

19.

Grabowski, K. C. (2009). Investigating the construct validity of a test designed to measure grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in the context of speaking. Doctoral thesis, Teachers College, Columbia University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing .

20.

Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). Understanding im/politeness across cultures: an interactional approach to raising sociopragmatic awareness. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(4), 389-414. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0018 .

21.

Hur, S. H. (2010). A pragmatic study on expression of politeness in Korean. Doctoral thesis, Pusan National University, Pusan .

22.

Hwang, J. R. (1976). hankwuketaywupepuy sahoyenehakcek kiswul - ku hyengsikhwa (Formularization)uy kanungseng [The description of Korean honorifics in sociolinguistic perspectives- the possibility of formularisation.]. Language and Linguistics, 4(0), 115-124 .

23.

Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women's language. Lingua, 57(2), 357-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90009-2 .

24.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua- Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 .

25.

Ide, S. (1993). Preface: the search for integrated universals of linguistic politness. Multilingua, 12(1), 7-11 .

26.

Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence: Mouton series in pragmatics 5 (pp. 101-128). Mouton de Gruyter .

27.

Jeon, J. M. (2007). yochenghwahayngey nathanan kongson cenlyakuy silhyen yangsang [The Aspect of Politeness Strategy in the Request Speech Act]. Korean Language Research(21), 247-268. https://doi.org/10.16876/klrc.2007..21.247 .

28.

Kim, H. S. (1990). A study of politeness in Korean -related to honorifics- Seoul .

29.

Kim, H. S. (1999). A study of politeness in English. Doctoral thesis, Cheongju University .

30.

Kim, J. H. (1999). oykwukinul taysangulo han hankwuke taywupep ihaynunglyek cosa yenkwu Seoul .

31.

Kim, Y. S. (1996). enecek kongson hyensanguy hwayongloncek yenkwu [A pragmatic study of linguistic politeness phenomena] Doctoral thesis, Inha University .

32.

Lafford, B. A. (1995). Getting into, through and out of a survival situation: A comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and 'at Home'. In B. F. Freed & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97-121). John Benjamins Publishing Company .

33.

Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language (Baltimore). 48(4), 907-927. https://doi. org/10.2307/411994 .

34.

Lee, H. Y. (2003). ilponin hankwuke kokup haksupcauy kecel hwahayng silhyen yangsang yenkwu [Refusal speech act realization patterns of Japanese learners of advanced or highly-advanced Korean language]. Journal of Korean Language Education, 14(2), 295-323 .

35.

Lee, J. B. (2001). kwuke kyengepep sayonguy cenlyakcek thukseng [The characteristics of the strategic use of Korean honorifics]. Thaehaksa .

36.

Lee, J. Y. (1990). hankwuke taywu phyohyen uy olyu pwunsek: hankwuke haksupca uy olyu hyensang ul pathang ulo. Master's thesis, Sangmyung University, Seoul .

37.

Lee, K. S. (2012). A study of pragmatic failures found in request speech acts by Chinese Korean learners. Master's thesis, Yonsei University, Seoul .

38.

Lee, M. S. (1997). Acquisition of Korean referent honorifics by adult learners of Korean as a second language. The Korean Language in America, 2, 99-110. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/42922215 .

39.

Lee, O. G. (2005). Distance of politeness in English communication: Proximating and distancing. NKJE, 47(2), 149-179 .

40.

Lee, S. B. (2015). sothonguy hwayonglon [Pragmatics of communication]. Hankook Publishing House .

41.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman .

42.

Leech, G. (2014). Politeness: Viewpoints. In G. Leech (Ed.), The pragmatics of politeness (pp. 28-54). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.003. 0002 .

43.

LoCastro, V. (1998). Learner subjectivity and pragmatic competence development. S. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, WA .

44.

LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System (Linköping), 29(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0346-251X(00)00046-4 .

45.

LoCastro, V. (2003). Learner subjectivity. In An introduction to pragmatics: Social action for language teachers. University of Michigan Press .

46.

LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators a sociolinguistic perspective. Routledge .

47.

Park, J. Y. (2006). hankwuke haksupcalul wihan yochenghwahayng kyoyuk pangan yenkwu [A study of teaching on request speech act for learners of Korean]. Master's thesis, Sookmyung Women's University, Seoul .

48.

Park, K. J. (1996). The characteristics of Korean American learners' use of speech levels and honorifics in Korean. Minjok munhwa yŏngu, 29, 349-377 .

49.

Park, S. M. (1995). hwakyey(speech level)wa hochinguy kwankyeyyenkwu: oykwukeloseuy hankwuke kyoyukuy chukmyeneyse Seoul .

50.

Park, S. Y. (2017). A study on the issue of Korean politeness research: Focusing on literature reviews. The Language and Culture, 13(4), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.18842/klaces.2017. 13.4.003 .

51.

Park, Y. L., & Oh, S. Y. (2009). Korean EFL learners' refusals to requests and their perceptions. English Teaching, 74(4), 75-103 .

52.

Park, Y. S. (1976). kwuke kyengepepuy sahoyenehakcek yenkwu [Social philological study of Korean honorific]. The Korean Language and Literature, 72/73, 47-65 .

53.

Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 245-268). John Benjamins Publishing Company .

54.

Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 356-382. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.3.356 .

55.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 529-545. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X .

56.

Takenoya, M. (1995). Terms of address in Japanese: Patterns of use by native speakers and American learners of Japanese (Publication Number 9540021) Ph.D., Indiana University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Ann Arbor .

57.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91 .

58.

Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press .

59.

Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Blackwell Pub .

60.

Yoon, E. M. (2004). hankwukinkwa hankwuke haksupcauy kecelhwahayngey nathanan kongsoncenlyak pikyoyenkwu - cheymyenpoholul wihan enecek cangchilul cwungsimulo [A cpmparison between politeness strategies utilized by native Korean speakers and learners of Korean in act of refusal]. Teaching Koreans as a Foreign Language, 29, 117-145 .