RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      한국 대학생 영어의 거절화행 연구 = A Study of the Speech Act of Refusal of Korean EFL Learners

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A103953181

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      The purpose of this study is to investigate the speech act of refusal of Korean EFL learners, to classify the refusal strategies used and to assess the appropriateness of the speech act to the particular situations. The study employed 139 Korean university students and divided those subjects into two groups, Advanced group(74 students with TOEIC scores about 800), and Intermediate Group(65 students with TOEIC scores about 400). This study used 10 discourse completion tasks to elicit the subjects’s refusal utterances and 16 kinds of refusal strategies to classify the utterances. Ten judges (5 native English teachers and 5 non-native English teachers) assessed the learners’ performances of 10 refusal situations.
      The findings are as follows.
      1) The refusal strategies used are excuse, apology, non-performative statement, alternative, insult, and philosophical strategies.
      2) There is a significant difference between the advanced learners and intermediate learners in the use of refusal strategies. Advanced learners use strategies more frequently than intermediate learners.
      3) There is no significant difference among the sociocultural variables in the use of refusal strategies.
      4) The overall appropriateness level of Korean EFL learners’ performances of the speech act of refusal is between ‘often inappropriate’ and ‘slightly appropriate’.
      5) There is a significant difference in the appropriateness level between the two groups.
      6) There is no difference between the two groups of judges, native and non-native English teachers, in the assessment of the subjects’ performances of 10 refusal tasks.
      번역하기

      The purpose of this study is to investigate the speech act of refusal of Korean EFL learners, to classify the refusal strategies used and to assess the appropriateness of the speech act to the particular situations. The study employed 139 Korean unive...

      The purpose of this study is to investigate the speech act of refusal of Korean EFL learners, to classify the refusal strategies used and to assess the appropriateness of the speech act to the particular situations. The study employed 139 Korean university students and divided those subjects into two groups, Advanced group(74 students with TOEIC scores about 800), and Intermediate Group(65 students with TOEIC scores about 400). This study used 10 discourse completion tasks to elicit the subjects’s refusal utterances and 16 kinds of refusal strategies to classify the utterances. Ten judges (5 native English teachers and 5 non-native English teachers) assessed the learners’ performances of 10 refusal situations.
      The findings are as follows.
      1) The refusal strategies used are excuse, apology, non-performative statement, alternative, insult, and philosophical strategies.
      2) There is a significant difference between the advanced learners and intermediate learners in the use of refusal strategies. Advanced learners use strategies more frequently than intermediate learners.
      3) There is no significant difference among the sociocultural variables in the use of refusal strategies.
      4) The overall appropriateness level of Korean EFL learners’ performances of the speech act of refusal is between ‘often inappropriate’ and ‘slightly appropriate’.
      5) There is a significant difference in the appropriateness level between the two groups.
      6) There is no difference between the two groups of judges, native and non-native English teachers, in the assessment of the subjects’ performances of 10 refusal tasks.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 김향선, "한영 화행 대조분석" 동국대학교 2002

      2 안현정, "한국인 영어학습자들의 화행에 관한 연구: 요청과 거절을 중심으로" 계명대학교 2005

      3 서희정, "한국어 거절 화행 교육 연구: 교재분석을 중심으로" 경희대학교 2001

      4 김남국, "한국 대학생 영어 중간언어의 사과화행 분석 및 적합도 평가" 한국중앙영어영문학회 50 (50): 45-74, 2008

      5 양진경, "영어권 한국어 고급학습자의 거절화행 인접쌍 연구: <예의상 거절>을 중심으로" 고려대학교 2007

      6 장용대, "영・한 화행 대조 분석: 거절을 중심으로" 울산대학교 1995

      7 박용예, "영‧한 화행 대조분석: ‘요청’과 ‘거절’을 중심으로" 서울대학교 1990

      8 Brown, P., "Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena in : Questions and Politeness" Cambridge University Press 1978

      9 Canale, M., "Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing" 1 : 1-47, 1980

      10 Ellis, R., "The Study of Second Language Acquisition" Oxford University Press 1996

      1 김향선, "한영 화행 대조분석" 동국대학교 2002

      2 안현정, "한국인 영어학습자들의 화행에 관한 연구: 요청과 거절을 중심으로" 계명대학교 2005

      3 서희정, "한국어 거절 화행 교육 연구: 교재분석을 중심으로" 경희대학교 2001

      4 김남국, "한국 대학생 영어 중간언어의 사과화행 분석 및 적합도 평가" 한국중앙영어영문학회 50 (50): 45-74, 2008

      5 양진경, "영어권 한국어 고급학습자의 거절화행 인접쌍 연구: <예의상 거절>을 중심으로" 고려대학교 2007

      6 장용대, "영・한 화행 대조 분석: 거절을 중심으로" 울산대학교 1995

      7 박용예, "영‧한 화행 대조분석: ‘요청’과 ‘거절’을 중심으로" 서울대학교 1990

      8 Brown, P., "Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena in : Questions and Politeness" Cambridge University Press 1978

      9 Canale, M., "Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing" 1 : 1-47, 1980

      10 Ellis, R., "The Study of Second Language Acquisition" Oxford University Press 1996

      11 Lyuh, I., "The Art of Refusal: Comparison of Korean and American cultures" Indiana University 1992

      12 Chomsky, N., "Syntactic structures" Mouton 1957

      13 Brown, P., "Speech as markers of situation in : Social Markers in Speech" Cambridge University Press 1979

      14 Beebe, L., "Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure" 1985

      15 Searle, J. R., "Speech Acts" Cambridge University Press 1969

      16 Bardovi-Harlig, K., "Pragmatics and Second Language Acquisition in : The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics" Oxford University Press 182-192, 2002

      17 Beebe, L., "Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals in : Developing communicative competence in a second language" Newbury House 55-73, 1990

      18 Bergman, M. L., "Perception and performance in Native and Nonnative Apology in : Interlanguage Pragmatics" Oxford University Press 1993

      19 Hymes, D., "On communicative competence in : Sociolinguistics" Penguin Books 1972

      20 Blum-Kulka, S., "Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language" 3 (3): 29-59, 1982

      21 Gass, S. M., "Interlanguage Refusals: A Cross-cultural Study of Japanese-English" Mouton de Gruyter 1999

      22 Kasper, G., "Interlanguage Pragmatics in SLA" 18 : 45-148, 1990

      23 Clyne, M. G., "Intercultural communication breakdown and communication conflict: Towards a linguistic model and its exemplification in : Deutsch im Kontact mit anderen Sprachen" Scriptor Verlag 1977

      24 Austin, J. L., "How to do things with words" Clarendon Press 1962

      25 Fraenkel, J. R., "How to design and evaluate Research in Education" The Mcgraw-Hill companies 2007

      26 Scollon, R., "Face in interethnic communication in : Language and communication" Longman 156-188, 1983

      27 Wennerstrom, A., "Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Volume 2. Genres of Writing" The University of Michigan Press 2003

      28 Riggenbach, H., "Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom: Volume 1. The Spoken Language" The University of Michigan Press 1999

      29 Thomas, J., "Cross-cultural pragmatic failure" 4 : 91-112, 1983

      30 Blum-Kulka, S., "Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies" Ablex 1989

      31 Bardovi-Harlig, K., "Congruence in native an nonnative conversations: status balance in the academic advising session" 40 : 467-501, 1990

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2007-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.45 0.45 0.45
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.4 0.38 0.67 0.23
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼