1887
Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0257-3784
  • E-ISSN: 2212-9731

Abstract

Abstract

How language learners of Korean acquire knowledge on postpositions has been a long-standing research question in Korean language pedagogy due to their polysemous nature. The present study investigates the nature of input involving the locative function of the postposition -, one of the representative polysemous postpositions in Korean, through the frequency of its occurrence, types of verbs co-occurring with -, and keyness analysis. Sejong written and spoken corpora and two types of textbooks (eight volumes for each type: two volumes for four proficiency levels) for language learners of Korean are analyzed. Results show that ‘to be/exist’ predominantly occurred with locative - in the Sejong corpora and a few verbs occupied a large proportion of the total usage. On the other hand, the most frequent verb was ‘to go’ in all proficiency levels of the textbooks, with the exception of the fourth level of the second-type textbook. This suggests that, while the Sejong usage highlights its existential role, - for indicating destination is widely emphasized in the textbooks. Since the purpose of language learning is to learn the structure and usage of the target language, this study’s findings can offer guidance in setting and building pedagogical goals and directions.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/kl.20001.jun
2022-09-30
2022-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/kl.20001.jun.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/kl.20001.jun&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Michael Tomasello
    2006 Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review23.3: 275–290. 10.1515/TLR.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahn, Eui-jeong & Songhwa Han
    2011 A study on the construction and application of YS-KLI corpus 1. Enesasilkwa kwancem28: 153–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Alsaif, Abdullah & James Milton
    2012 Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. The Language Learning Journal40.1: 21–33. 10.1080/09571736.2012.658221
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658221 [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens, Heike
    2009 Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics47.2: 383–411. 10.1515/LING.2009.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.014 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas, Ulla Connor, Thoams A. Upton, Molly Anthony & Kostyantyn Gladkov
    2007 Rhetorical appeals in fundraising. InDiscourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structureed byDouglas Biber, Ulla Connor and Thomas A. Upton, 121–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan
    2008 Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. InHandbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisitioned byPeter Robinson and Nick Ellis, 216–236. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InOxford handbook of construction grammared byThomas Hoffmann and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper
    2001Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chae, Hee-Rahk. & Eunsuk Lim
    2013 An analysis of locative expressions [NP-ey] and [NP-eyse] in Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics38.4: 997–1026. 10.18855/lisoko.2013.38.4.010
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2013.38.4.010 [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis, Mark & Timothy L. Face
    2006 Vocabulary coverage in Spanish textbooks: How representatives is it?InSelected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposiumed byNuria Sagarra and Almeida Jacqueline Toribio, 132–143. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Divjak, Dagmar & Catherine Caldwell-Harris
    2015 Frequency and entrenchment. InHandbook of cognitive linguistics (Vol.39) ed byEwa Dąbrowska and Dagmar ‎Divjak, 53–75. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110292022‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, Nick & Fernando Ferreira-Junior
    2009a Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93.3: 370–385. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  13. 2009b Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7.1: 188–221. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, Nick
    2002 Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24.2: 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fraysse-Kim, Soon Hee
    2010 Keywords in Korean national consciousness: A corpus-based analysis of school textbooks. InKeyness in text: Corpus linguistic investigationsed byMarina Bondi and Mike Scott, 219–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.41.16fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.41.16fra [Google Scholar]
  16. Gabrielatos, Costas
    2018 Keyness analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. InCorpus approaches to discourse: A critical reviewed byCharlotte Taylor and Anna Marchi, 225–258. Oxford: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315179346‑11
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179346-11 [Google Scholar]
  17. Glisan, Eileen. W. & Victor Drescher
    1993 Textbook grammar: Does it reflect native speaker speech?The Modern Language Journal77.1: 23–33. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1993.tb01941.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01941.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2019Explain me this. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, Stephan Th, Beate Hampe & Doris Schönefeld
    2005 Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics16.4: 635–676. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  20. Han, Sang-Mee
    2014 An analysis of errors on the usage of postpositions in the discussions of advanced Korean language learners. Bilingual research57: 223–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Howell, David. C.
    2010Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jeong, Su-jin
    2011 A study on the description methods of the adverbial case postpositions for Korean education based on cognitive linguistics. The Korean Language and Literature112: 79–110.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jung, Boo Kyung
    2020 Verb use for the locative functions of three adverbial postpositions (-ey, -eyse, and -(u)lo) in Korean: Analysis of L1-Korean corpora and L2-Korean textbooks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawai‘i.
  24. Jurafsky, Daniel
    1996 A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science20: 137–194. 10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2002_1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kang, Bum Mo & Hong Gyu Kim
    2009Hankwuke sayong pindo [Usage Frequency of Korean language]. Seoul, Korea: Hankwuk Mwunhwsa.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kang, Hyoun-Hwa
    2011 A study on designing of Korean learner corpus construction. Journal of Korealex17: 7–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kang, Yue
    2015 A study on education of Korean postposition ‘e’, ‘eseo’, ‘ro’ for Chinese Korean learners. Unpublished master dissertation. Seoul National University.
  28. Kang, Yunkyoung
    2012 Cognitive linguistics approach to semantics of spatial relations in Korean. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University.
  29. Kilgarriff, Adam
    2001 Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics6.1: 97–133. 10.1075/ijcl.6.1.05kil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.6.1.05kil [Google Scholar]
  30. 2005 Language is never ever ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1.2: 263–276. search.proquest.com/docview/85643706/
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, Han-saem
    2017 Factors and practice of Korean learner corpus annotation. Paytalmal61: 149–173.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, Hung-gyu, Beom-mo Kang, & Jungha Hong
    2007 21seyki seycongkyeyhoyk hyentaykwuke kichomalmwungchi sengkwawa cenmang [21st century Sejong modern Korean corpora: Results and expectations]. InProceedings of Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology31: 311–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Il Hwan
    2016 Hankwuke haksupca malmwungchiuy cwusek kwacengkwa hwalyong pangpep [Annotation process and its use of Korean learner corpus], InKwukceyhankwukekyoyukhakhoy Chwunkyeyhakswulpalpyononmwuncip [Proceedings of Spring conference of the International Association for Korean Language Education], 233–239.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim, Seok Ki
    2011 Education method for the adverb postpositions of ‘ey’, ‘eyse’, ‘lo’ in the Korean language. Kwukhakyenkwulonchong8: 199–236.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, Young-joo & Jin Guo
    2016 A study on the acquisition of Korean adverbial case marker ey in spoken production by Chinese Korean L2 learners. Kwukekyoyukyenkwu [Korean Education Research] 38: 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim, Youngjin
    1999 The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes14.5–6: 687–714. 10.1080/016909699386239
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386239 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kim, Yu-Mi
    2002 A study of error analysis of Korean learners by using ‘Learner Corpus’. Teaching Korean as a foreign language27: 141–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Klein, Dan & Christopher D. Manning
    2005 Natural language grammar induction with a generative constituent-context model. Pattern Recognition38.9: 1407–1419. 10.1016/j.patcog.2004.03.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2004.03.023 [Google Scholar]
  39. Ko, Seok-Ju, Mi Ok Kim, Je Yeol Kim, Sang Gyu Seo, Hee Jeong Jung & Songhwa Han
    2004‘Hankwuke haksupca’ malmwungchiwa olyu pwunsek [‘Korean learners’ Corpus and error analysis]. Seoul, Korea: Hankwukmwunhwasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ko, Seok-Ju
    2011 A reconsideration of Korean particle ‘e’s meaning. Journal of Korean Linguistics61: 93–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ko, Young Gun & Pon Gwan Ku
    2008Wuli-mal mwunpep-lon [A grammar theory of Korean]. Seoul: Cipmwuntang.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kroeger, Paul
    2005Analysing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801679
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801679 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kyle, Kristopher & Scott Crossley
    2017 Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing34.4: 513–535. 10.1177/0265532217712554
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217712554 [Google Scholar]
  44. Langacker, Ronald. W.
    2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lee, Chan-kyu & Ye-jin Ko
    2013 The degree of advanced Korean learners’ recognition of postposition. Emwunnoncip56: 485–511.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, Ikseop
    2011Kwukehakkaysel [Introduction to Korean linguistics]. Seoul: Hakyensa.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lee, Jeong-Hwa
    2004 A cognitive account of the Korean locative postpositions -ey and -eyse. Discourse and Cognition11.1: 237–251.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lee, Jung Hee
    2003Hankwuke haksupcauy olyu yenkwu [Error analysis of Korean learners]. Seoul, Korea: Pakiceng.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, Ki Dong
    1981 The meaning of the postpositions ey and eyse. Hangul173–174: 9–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee, Su-mi
    2017 Hankwuke haksupcauy malhakiwa ssukiey nathanan ehwi sayonguy congtancek yenkwu [A longitudinal study of vocabulary usage presented in speaking and writing of Korean learners]. wulimalkul74: 183–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Leone, Paola
    2010 General spoken language and school language. InKeyness in text: Corpus linguistic investigationsed byMarina Bondi and Mike Scott, 235–248. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.41.17leo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.41.17leo [Google Scholar]
  52. Lim, Dong-Hoon
    2017 How to express local concepts in Korean. Journal of Korean Linguistics82: 101–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lim, Soojong, Minjung Kwon, Junsu Kim & Hyunki Kim
    2015 Korean proposition bank guidelines for ExoBrain. InProceeding of the 27th Annual Conference on Human & Cognitive Language Technology, 250–254. Human and Language Technology.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Maeng, Kyung Hum
    2016 Hyentay hankwuke cosa ‘ey’uy inciuymilon [Cognitive understanding of modern Korean postposition ‘ey’]. The Journal of Korean Studies41: 325–366.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Min, Jin Young
    2002 Hankwuke kokup haksupcauy cosa olyu pwunsek [Postposition error analysis of advanced Korean learners]. Unpublished master dissertation. Yonsei University, Korea.
  56. Moder, Carol Lynn
    2010To learn effectively: Grammatical constructions for second language grammar instruction. Paper presented atAAAL: Atlanta, GA.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nam, Ki Sim
    1993Kwuke cosauy yenkwu: ‘ey’wa ‘ro’lul cwungsimulo [Study on Korean postpositions: focused on ‘ey’ and ‘lo’]. Seoul, Pakiceng.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Park, Jun Seok
    2012 The meaning and functions of particle ‘-e’ in Korean. Dong-ak Society of Language and Literature59: 427–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Römer, Ute
    2004 Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. InCorpora and language learnersed byGuy Aston, Silvia Bernardini, and Dominic Steward, 151–168. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. 10.1075/scl.17.12rom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.12rom [Google Scholar]
  60. Rosenfeld, Barry & Steven Penrod
    2011Research methods in forensic psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Seo, Sang Gyu
    2006Oykwukinul wihan hankwuke haksup sacen [Learner’s dictionary of Korean]. Seoul, Korea: Sinwon Prime.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2014Hankwuke kiponehwi uymi pinto sacen [Frequency dictionary of Korean basic lexicon and meaning]. Seoul, Korea: Hankwuk Mwunhwasa.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Sohn, Ho Min
    1999The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Straka, Milan, Jan Hajič & Jana Straková
    2016 UDPipe: Trainable pipeline for processing CoNLL-U files performing tokenization, morphological analysis, POS tagging and parsing. InProceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Portorož, Slovenia, May 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Tomasello, Michael
    2000 First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics11.1: 61–82. 10.1515/cogl.2001.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.012 [Google Scholar]
  66. 2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Tono, Yukio
    2004 Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: The case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English. InCorpora and language learnersed byGuy Aston, Silvia Bernardini, and Dominic Steward, 45–66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/scl.17.05ton
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.05ton [Google Scholar]
  68. Türker, Ebru
    2005 Locative expressions in Korean and Turkish: A cognitive grammar approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.
  69. Tyler, Andrea
    2012Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. UK: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203876039
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203876039 [Google Scholar]
  70. Zipf, George Kingsley
    1935The psyhco-biology of language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/kl.20001.jun
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/kl.20001.jun
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): input frequency; Korean postposition; language textbook; locative function
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error