대한언어학회 전자저널

Lee, Yumi. (2019). A study on the use of expressive sentence patterns according to Korean learners proficiency. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 27(3), 23-51. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between Korean learners use of expressive sentence patterns and their proficiency. A total of 75 learners of Korean as a second language (KSL) participated in the study. The participants were divided into three groups: beginner (N=25), intermediate (N=25), and advanced (N=25). The participants were asked to respond to a Discourse Completion Test (DCT), and to take a C-test on proficiency. The DCT included two questions for each discourse: suggestion, order, request, apology, refusal, and wish scenarios. In order to examine learners use of expressive sentence patterns, this study considered both types and tokens. The analysis of Spearmans Rho revealed a low positive relationship between learners use of expressive sentence patterns and their proficiency. Moreover, Fisher's exact test results showed that there were significant differences among the three groups in the use of expressive sentence patterns for order and refusal. The study showed that learners increased their use of polite expressions in the advanced group, and indicated that proficiency is associated with pragmatic knowledge of expressive sentence patterns.

# 표현 문형(expressive sentence patterns) # 정형화된 표현(formulaic expressions) # 숙달도(proficiency)

• 강현화. (2007a). 한국어 교재의 문형유형 분석-문형 등급화를 위해-. 한국어 교육, 18(1), 1-21.
• 강현화. (2007b). 한국어 표현문형 담화기능과의 상관성 분석 연구-지시적 화행을 중심으로-. 이중언어학, 34, 1-26.
• *강현화, 이현정, 남신혜, 장채린, 홍현정, 김강희. (2016). 한국어교육 문법 자료편. 서울: 한글파크.
• *국립국어원. (2005). 외국인을 위한 한국어 문법 2. 서울: 커뮤니케이션 북스.
• 김유미. (2005). 문형 사전을 위한 문형 빈도 조사. 인지과학, 16(2), 123-140.
• 김중섭 외. (2011). 국제 통용 한국어교육 표준 모형 개발 2단계. 국립국어원.
• 김중섭 외. (2017). 국제 통용 한국어 표준 교육과정 적용 연구. 국립국어원.
• 민현식. (2004). 한국어 표준교육과정 기술 방안. 한국어 교육, 15(1), 50-51.
• *서강대학교 한국어교육원. (2007). 서강 한국어 5A, 5B. 서울: 도서출판 하우.
• *서강대학교 한국어교육원. (2008). 서강 한국어 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B. 서울: 도서출판 하우.
• *서강대학교 한국어교육원. (2015). 서강 한국어 4A, 4B. 서울: 도서출판 하우.
• *서울대학교 언어교육원. (2012). 서울대 한국어 5A, 5B. 서울: 투판즈.
• *서울대학교 언어교육원. (2013). 서울대 한국어 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B. 서울: 투판즈.
• *서울대학교 언어교육원. (2015). 서울대 한국어 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 6A, 6B. 서울: 투판즈.
• 석주연. (2005). 한국어교육에서의 문형교육의 방향에 대한 일고찰. 한국어교육, 16(1), 89-120.
• 신경선. (2012). 한국어 학습자의 작문에 나타난 정형화된 언어 사용이 작문 평가 결과에 미치는 영향. 어학연구, 48(1), 77-96.
• *연세대학교 한국어학당. (2013). 연세 한국어 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 4-2, 5-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-2. 서울: 연세대학교 대학출판문화원.
• 원미진. (2013). 학문목적 한국어 학습자를 대상으로 정형화된 표현 사용의 쓰기 교육 효과 연구. 언어사실과 관점, 35, 157-181.
• 원운하, 박덕유. (2017). 한·중 한국어 교재에 제시된 표현문형 고찰. 교육문화연구, 23(5), 439-467.
• 유소영. (2013). 한국어교육을 위한 문법표현 연구–문법표현 선정과 등급화를 중심으로-. 단국대학교 박사학위논문.
• 윤은미. (2004). 한국인과 한국어 학습자의 거절화행에 나타난 공손전략 비교연구-체면보호를 위한 언어적 장치를 중심으로-. 외국어로서의 한국어교육, 29, 117-145.
• 이미혜. (2002). 한국어 문법교육에서 '표현 항목' 설정에 대한 연구. 한국어 교육, 13(2), 205-225.
• 이미혜. (2005). 한국어 문법 항목 교육 연구. 서울: 도서출판 박이정.
• 이복자. (2014). 초급 일본인 한국어 학습자의 거절 화행 연구: 시간차에 따른 전략 사용 양상을 중심으로. 한국어 교육, 25(1), 83-113.
• 이성범. (2015). 소통의 화용론. 서울: 한국문화사.
• 이은하. (2015). 작업기억 용량과 L2 숙달도가 한국어 학습자의 형태통사 오류 처리에 미치는 영향: 자가 속도조절 듣기 연구. 한국어 교육, 26(1), 299-351.
• 이해영. (2003). 한국어 교육에서의 문법 교육. 국어교육, 112, 73-94.
• 이행선, 김문기. (2017). 학습자 중심의 한국어 문형 교육을 위한 제언. 코기토, 82, 267-301.
• *이화여자대학교 언어교육원. (2010). 이화 한국어 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2. 서울: Epress.
• *이화여자대학교 언어교육원. (2011). 이화 한국어 3-1, 3-2, 4. 서울: Epress.
• *이화여자대학교 언어교육원. (2012). 이화 한국어 5, 6. 서울: Epress.
• 조민정, 강현화, 박동호. (2009). 상용표현의 담화 기능 분석. 외국어로서의 한국어교육, 34, 465-492.
• 종장지. (2015). 한국어 문법교육을 위한 표현문형 연구. 서울대학교 박사학위논문.
• 최윤곤. (2007). 외국어로서의 한국어 구문 표현 연구. 서울: 한국문화사.
• 최준, 송현주, 남길임. (2010). 한국어의 정형화된 표현 연구. 담화와 인지, 17(2), 163-190.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 324-350.
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., Rose, M., & Nickels, E. L. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apologizing, and refusing. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, S. Perpiñán, & R. Bhatt (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 113-130). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
• Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In C. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at...: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371-405.
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
• Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
• Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canale, M. (l983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
• Canale, M., & Swain, M. (l980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
• Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41-57). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). A pedagogical framework for communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Grundy, P. (2008). Doing pragmatics (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
• Henriksen, B. (2013). Research on L2 learners’ collocational competence and development: A progress report. In C. Bardel, C. Lindqvist, & B. Laufer (Eds.), L2 vocabulary acquisition, knowledge and use: New perspectives on assessment and corpus analysis (pp. 29-56), Amsterdam: Eurosla.
• Houck, N., & Gass, S. M. (1996). Non-native refusals: A methodological perspective. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 45-64). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4-21.
• Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269-293). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
• Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339-364.
• Laufer, B., & Waldman, T. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learner’ English. Language Learning, 61(2), 647-672.
• Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• Lee-Ellis, S. (2009). The development and validation of a Korean C-test using rasch analysis. Language Testing, 26(2), 245-274.
• Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
• Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach: Putting theory into practice. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
• Lin, Ming-Fang. (2014). An interlanguage pragmatic study on Chinese EFL learners’ refusal: Perception and performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 642-653.
• Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.
• Racine, J. P. (2018). Lexical approach. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching Volume Ⅱ (pp. 1-7). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Rafieyan, V. (2018). Knowledge of formulaic sequences as a predictor of language proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(2), 64-69.
• Revier, R. L. (2009). Evaluating a new test of whole English collocations. In A. Barfield & H. Gyllstad (Eds.), Researching collocations in another language: Multiple interpretations (pp. 125-138). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Rovai, A. P., Baker, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2013). Social science research design and statistics: A practitioner's guide to research methods and IBM SPSS. Chesapeake, VA: Watertree Press LLC.
• Schmitt, N. (2000). Key concepts in ELT: Lexical chunks. English Language Teaching Journal, 54(4), 400-401.
• Schmitt, N., Dörnyei, Z., Adolphs, S., & Durow, V. (2004). Knowledge and acquisition of formulaic sequences: A longitudinal study. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use (pp. 55-86). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23.
• Serrano, R., Stengers, H., & Housen, A. (2015). Acquisition of formulaic sequences in intensive and regular EFL programmes. Language Teaching Research, 19(1), 89-106.
• Stengers, H., Boers, F., Housen, A., & Eyckmans, J. (2011). Formulaic sequences and L2 oral proficiency: Does the type of target language influence the association?. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching(IRAL), 49(4), 321-343.
• Willis, D. (1990). The lexical syllabus: A new approach to language teaching. London: Collins ELT.
• Wood, D. (2002). Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 20(1), 1-15.
• Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.