비교문화적 화용론의 관점에서 본 한국인과 태국인의 거절 화행 연구

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to contrast the patterns of realization and understanding of refusal speech acts between Korean and Thai learners. This study intends to answer the following questions: (1) Do Koreans and Thai learners perform refusal speech acts differently? (2) Do Koreans and Thai learners understand refusal speech acts differently? A DCT and a follow-up interview were conducted to collect data of two groups of 30 native Korean speakers and 30 native Thai speakers. For research question 1, we analyzed the refusal strategy and provided reasons given by Koreans and Thai learners depending on the context. For research question 2, we ran a chi-squared test on the elements of the follow-up interviews, such as the weight of burden of refusing, and whether the participant would actually refuse or not. The differences between the refusal strategies of the two groups could be categorized by the preceding inducing speech act. In refusing a request, the difference was prominent in the apologizing strategy, whereas in refusing a suggestion, the difference was mainly in the direct refusal strategy. When refusing an invitation, the most evident difference was the number of refusal strategies employed. When providing an explanation of refusal to people with high social status, Koreans gave more specific reasons for refusals, whereas Thai learners tended to use more vague reasons. Moreover, when refusing an invitation, Koreans primarily mentioned the relationship, and Thai learners showed the spirit of Greng Jai. When asked the weight of burden of refusing, Koreans felt pressured to refuse a request from people with high social status, and a suggestion or invitation from people with high level of intimacy while Thai learners found it highly difficult to make a refusal in all cases. In answering whether they would actually refuse or not, Koreans tried not to make a refusal to people with high level of intimacy, and such a trend was not evident among the Thai. This study can help us better understand the learner’s pragmatic failure, and serve as a basis in establishing a curriculum for teaching speech acts.