[사회문화배경] Usage of Honorific Address Terms and Gestures in Korean Speakers of English(영문)
등록일 / 수정일- 페이지 / 형식
- 자료평가
- 구매가격
- 2010.08.20 / 2019.12.24
- 10페이지 /
doc (MS워드 2003이하) - 평가한 분이 없습니다. (구매금액의 3%지급)
- 1,400원
최대 20페이지까지 미리보기 서비스를 제공합니다.
자료평가하면 구매금액의 3%지급!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
추천 연관자료
- 목차
-
1. Introduction
2. Background of Study
2.1 Research Hypothesis
3. Method
3.1 Linguistic and Social Variables
3.2 Subjects
3.3 Data Collection and Data Analysis
4. Results and Discussions
4.1 Final Results
4.2 Other Observations
5. Conclusion and Implications
References
- 본문내용
-
3.3 Data Collection and Data Analysis
For the data collection, three simulated situations were made based on the studies mentioned above. The situations that were selected all allow the usage of FN even in the case of an asymmetrical relationship in United States but never in Korea. Also, these three situations are situations which Korean university students can easily encounter and experience in their age range. Possible conditions that might influence the responses of the research were all controlled such as age, intimate level, period of seeing each other, assent of using FN from superior, and etc. Simulated interlocutors were all set as native speakers of English.
Situation A is for the observation honorifics in the relationship between professor and students. Under the setting of speaking with the professor, various questions were asked about address terms and relevant gestures such as, “How do you call your professor in this situation?” or “How do you greet him? How would you receive a handout?” To observe whether the subjects were comfortable with using honorific address terms or FN the question was added for asking whether it is comfortable to call somebody by their FN. Situation B is for observing honorifics in the relationship with elderly couple with the situation of home staying abroad. Here the question asking gestures of receiving a drink when elder people pour on a glass. Situation C is with future parents in law in the situation of meeting the parents for the first time at the airport. Here, the question asking gestures of pointing direction to superior was added. The actual interview questions attached at appendix 4. The data were collected in the interview format.
For data analysis, the responses which were originally collected in interview format have been organized into scores according to its honorific level. Basically, the more honored level of address terms received a higher score, and the less honored level received a lower score. For the address terms, Title which is the most honored address term was allotted 4 points, 3 points for TLN, 2 points for Mr./Mrs. LN, and 1 point for FN which is least honored and most intimate form. We added one more score when they said it was not comfortable to call other people by their first name.
For gestures as well, the more honored level of gestures received a higher score, and the less honored level was allotted a lower score. Also, one more point was added if the interviewers said it was uncomfortable when they made intimate, non honorific gestures. The details of the data analysis method of scoring can be seen in appendix 5. The responses for the situations were added up for each subject to measure the level of honorifics in their address terms and gestures. Those who received a high total were classified as using more honorifics and those with a low total score less honorifics. Certain responses which did not belong to the appropriate usage of address term or gesture or were to extreme were given 5 points if it was extremely formal and 0 if too extremely intimate. All the responses and score for each response are specified in appendix 6.
4. Results and Discussions
The results of the study will be presented in this section. The final result presenting the observations of honorifics among Korean speakers of English with experience and no experience abroad will be stated. Some other observations that were made through the data analysis will follow.
4.1 Final Results
First of all, the comparison between N-EA and EA has been examined to confirm the hypothesis. Figure 1 is the total score of all three situations compared between N- EA and EA. Students with N-EA received 25.2 points out of 43, while those with EA got 19.5. More detailed figures are specified in appendix 7.
Figure 1. Comparison of honorific level
As seen in Figure 2, students with N-EA were more conscious in using honorific terms and gestures compared to those with EA. Those with N-EA displayed less use of first names as address terms, and were not comfortable in using first name address terms even when intimate. In addition, when using gestures, students with N-EA were very formal, using both hands and full hand when receiving or pointing out something, compared to those with EA. Therefore, our hypothesis has been confirmed through this data which displays that Korean speakers of English with N-EA use more honorifics in address terms and gestures than those with EA. A more detailed analysis can be examined by looking at the three different situations that the subjects were asked questions in.
- 참고문헌
-
Hijirida, K., & Sohn, H. M. (1986). Cross-cultural patterns of honorifics and sociolinguistic
sensitivity to honorific variables: evidence from English, Japanese, and Korean. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 19: 3, 365-401.
Kwon, S. C. (2000). Linguistic politeness formulas and nonverbal components. Kyongju
University, 13, 155-74.
Lee, H. S. (1999). A comparative study on use of address terms and titles in English and
Korean. Master's thesis. The Graduate School of SungKyunKwan University of Education 199902, Seoul, Korea.
Ok, J. S. (2000). Address terms revisited: English and Korean. Jungang English Language
and Literature Association of Korea, 42, 191-218.
Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers. 260-83.
자료평가
-
아직 평가한 내용이 없습니다.
오늘 본 자료
더보기
최근 판매 자료
- 자살을 시도한 내담자와의 면접에서 고려해야 할 사항이 무엇이 있는지 작성하고 자신이 활용할 면접기술을 제시한 후 그 이유에 대하여 제시하시오
- 사회복지조사론-연역법과 귀납법의 장점과 한계는 무엇인가 본인이 연구자라면 어떤 방법을 지지하고 사용할 것인지 사례를 들어 논의 하시오
- 방어기제 이론을 설명하고, 여러분이 자주 사용하는 방어기제를 4가지 사례를 통해서 구체적으로 설명하고 스스로 극복해야 할 바를 제시
- 중화인민공화국(중국)의 수립, 중화인민공화국(중국)의 의의, 중화인민공화국(중국)의 경제체제, 중화인민공화국(중국)의 토지개혁, 중화인민공화국(중국)의 전리법, 중화인민공화국(중국)의 대약진정책 분석
- 고객가치의 2가지 구성요소(고객 혜택, 고객코스트) 중, 고객 혜택의 3가지 구성요소의 개념을 사례를 들어 설명하여 보시오
- [서비스운영관리] 서비스운영관리의 개념과 운영
- 레미제라블 사회복지관점 영화감상문(영화줄거리, 주인공환경, 복지정책프로그램, 프로그램제안, 느낀점)
- [영화와 철학] 영화 `레미제라블`속 개인과 사회의 가치충돌과 판단 문제 고찰
- 의료관광사업 의료관광의 개념 의료 관광의 종류 중국 의료관광산업 한중 의료관광 의료관광의 가치 의료관광의 성장요인
- 인간행동과사회환경_벡과 로저스의 성격이론에 대한 비교설명
저작권 관련 사항 정보 및 게시물 내용의 진실성에 대하여 레포트샵은 보증하지 아니하며, 해당 정보 및 게시물의 저작권과 기타 법적 책임은 자료 등록자에게 있습니다. 위 정보 및 게시물 내용의 불법적 이용, 무단 전재·배포는 금지됩니다. 저작권침해, 명예훼손 등 분쟁요소 발견시 고객센터에 신고해 주시기 바랍니다.
