LINGUIST List 22.5144 Wed Dec 21 2011 Review: Applied Ling; Lang Acquisition; Pragmatics: Brown (2011) Editor for this issue: Rajiv Rao <rajivlinguistlist.org> This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Jieun Ryu , Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning Message 1: Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning Date: 21-Dec-2011 From: Jieun Ryu <jryuemail.arizona.edu> Subject: Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/22/22-1966.html AUTHOR: Brown, Lucien TITLE: Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning SERIES TITLE: Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 206 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins YEAR: 2011 Jieun Ryu, Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, University of Arizona SUMMARY This monograph, entitled ''Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning,'' originates from the author's doctoral dissertation submitted at the University of London. In his book, Brown investigates the use of Korean honorifics by second-language speakers of Korean from ''Western'' backgrounds. The author also explores how social identity in Korean society and ideology towards politeness affect advanced speakers' development and practical application of the honorifics system. Mixed methods were used to collect data (e.g. discourse completion tests (DCTs), role-plays, natural interactions, and interviews). The book is comprised of nine chapters, along with notes on transcriptions, and appendices. The book begins with an introduction, followed by chapters that include research questions, a justification and overview of methodology, and a thorough description of the Korean honorifics system. The first two chapters present the document's theoretical background and establish a methodological framework. The following four chapters then provide data analysis of each method of study. The author concludes the book with not only an elaboration of future research directions, but also with recommended teaching implications. Appendices include study DCTs, raw DCT scores, prompts for role-plays, as well as recordings of natural interactions, interview questions, and a summary of each participant's honorific usage. Chapter 1, ''Introduction,'' offers an overview of the study. First, the author provides the objectives and research questions of the study, which focuses on competence in the Korean honorifics system of advanced speakers of Korean as a Second Language (KSL) and the effect of ideologies and identity on honorifics development. Gaps in previous research approaches to Korean honorifics development and interlanguage pragmatics are discussed. Then, participant and data collection information are provided. The author also briefly describes common terminology that frequently appears in honorifics books. In Chapter 2, ''The Korean honorifics system,'' a brief survey of the honorifics system is presented. Three categories of honorifics - referent, hearer, and bystander - are explored with cross-linguistic examples. Referent honorifics index “the relationship between the speaker and the grammatical referents in the sentence or between different grammatical referents” (p. 30). Hearer honorifics “index the relationship between the speaker and the addressee or immediate audience” (p. 23) and are expressed as a speech style in Korean. Bystander honorifics “index the presence of specific onlookers at the scene of a speech event” (p. 20). The chapter provides a thorough description of hearer honorifics, referent honorifics, and address forms of Korean honorifics in isolation. Next, co-occurrence of different honorifics, and factors influencing honorifics use, are discussed. Honorifics-use factors include power and distance between interlocutors, formality of context, and strategic uses such as softening assertions, sarcasm, jokes, anger, and insults. The author concludes the chapter by briefly comparing differences between the use of honorifics in Japanese and Korean. In Chapter 3, ''Honorifics and politeness,'' the author reviews how the honorifics system is positioned in previous politeness research by examining four approaches. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) first approach views politeness as a universal strategic process and approaches honorifics as a face threatening act (FTA) mitigator. The second approach is specific to Korean and Japanese; the honorifics system of these languages is driven by “deference” (which is obligatory according to Hwang (1990) and Ide (1989)), rather than “politeness” (which depends on the speakers’ strategic choice). Another approach is the “relational work” model proposed by Watts (1989), who describes the linguistic behavior division between “polite,” which is positively marked behavior that attracts the hearer’s attention, and “politic,” which is conventionalized unmarked behavior. Lastly, a normative/strategic model is proposed by Korean linguists Lee (2001) and Yoo (1996), who state that normative uses of honorifics meet social expectations, while strategic uses pursue specific purposes. This final approach favors the strategic process proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). It is revealed that mainstream views on ''politeness'' and ''honorifics'' are not adequate enough to explain Korean honorifics usage. To resolve this discrepancy, the author proposes the ''frame-based'' (Terkourafi, 2005) politeness model as the optimal solution. “Frames” are normative expectations of appropriate behavior, and the frame-based view includes regularity in its criteria for judging politeness. Therefore, a frame-based approach judges politeness of linguistic behavior when it occurs regularly in a given context and is unmarked. The author follows with a discussion on the importance of ideology and a reconceptualized notion of ''face as interactional and relational'' in interlanguage pragmatic studies. Finally, the chapter introduces ideologies affecting Korean honorifics usage that are different from those of ''Western'' cultures. Chapter 4, ''Honorifics and L2 pragmatic development,'' provides the framework for analyzing interlanguage pragmatic development in Korean honorifics. First, the author briefly provides a definition of ''pragmalinguistic knowledge'' as “knowledge of the actual linguistic resources needed for conveying communicative acts or interpersonal meanings (p. 86).” Then, L2 sociopragmatic knowledge development and identity in development are discussed as ''re-framing,'' that is, “re-analyzing and enriching existing frames” (p. 89) by L2 speakers, and ''re-facing,'' that is, construction of new public self-image by L2 speakers, followed by factors affecting re-framing (e.g. native language and cultures, over/under-generalization, and classroom instruction), and, finally, re-facing (e.g. attitudes of the Korean community and L2 speakers). In Chapter 5, ''Data analysis: Discourse Completion Test,'' DCTs that were completed by 20 advanced speakers of KSL and 40 native Korean (L1) speakers are analyzed by individual honorifics types. The results revealed that: 1) L2 speakers use honorifics with less variation than L1 speakers; 2) honorifics usage is less affected by power factors, and L2 speakers use honorifics in a more egalitarian way than L1 speakers; and 3) professional and non-heritage speakers use more honorifics than exchange students and heritage speakers, except in the case of the subject honorific. With the exception of heritage speakers, the subject honorific is seldom used. The results in Chapter 6, entitled ''Data analysis: Role-plays,'' reveal a lack of referent honorifics competence by L2 speakers. Moreover, egalitarian usage of honorifics, that is, avoidance of using too-high or too-low honorifics, and the application of modulation politeness strategy (i.e. the honorific style upgrade to show more respect) are found, showing that the politeness ideology of L2 speakers' own culture plays a role when they use Korean honorifics. In Chapter 7, ''Data analysis: Natural interactions,'' the analysis of transcribed data shows that the same trends found from DCTs and role-play exist in real-world interactions. The author discusses L2 speakers' honorifics usage patterns in relation to the participants' politeness ideology derived from their native cultural background. In addition, the effect of identity perceived by Korean community members, and by L2 speakers themselves on honorifics usage, is discussed. The identity effect was counted as a possible explanation of incidences in which exchange students used non-honorifics when honorific usage was required or desirable. Chapter 8, ''Data analysis: Honorific sensitive incidents,'' analyzes retrospective interviews of participants. The chapter discusses the factors influencing the use of honorifics found in the interviews, including a lack of pragmalinguistic knowledge, perception of L1 Koreans towards L2 speakers, and L2 speakers' negotiation of their own identity as being between Korean and that of a foreigner. Chapter 9, ''Discussion and conclusion,'' summarizes and discusses the main findings in terms of Korean honorifics competence by each honorifics system and the effects of identities and ideologies on honorifics usage. Next, the author provides recommendations for future research on politeness and interlanguage pragmatics. He also gives recommendations for more effective means of teaching based on his findings. Lastly, directions for further Korean honorifics research are suggested. EVALUATION This well-implemented study provides researchers of Korean honorifics use valuable insights into how advanced KSL speakers use honorifics. Given the lack of research in the area of Korean honorifics from a social semiotic perspective (Halliday, 1978), this study is a great example of how advanced KSL speakers' honorifics usage can be explained from this perspective. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, this book succeeds in describing how honorifics usage is implemented through negotiation of politeness between the socially constructed identities of L2 speakers. A target audience of this monograph includes individuals involved in research on interlanguage pragmatic development and politeness, as well as KSL teachers of advanced Korean students. Another merit of this study is its analysis of interactions occurring in a natural setting, which is an area that lacks adequate research in the field. Most research on Korean honorifics is conducted in a classroom setting. DCTs are perceived as reflecting naturally occurring interaction; however, one can't deny that they contain artificial aspects when compared to natural interaction. By analyzing the natural conversation of L2 speakers, the study allows researchers to see the actual language practiced by L2 speakers rather than their performance in the classroom. Furthermore, explicit discussion of pedagogical implications -- another merit of this study -- will attract KSL researchers who are also teachers. However, I think that the lack of explicit examples might make it difficult for the average KSL teacher to apply the suggested recommendations in his/her class. Participant classification of having a “Western” background is striking in Chapter 1. The author identified this group in what may be viewed as an artificial manner. Participants were identified as being from a ''Western'' background in terms of perception toward social interaction even though their ethnicity and nationality varied significantly. Half of the participants were classified as “heritage” language learners, while the other half was comprised of people from Japan, the USA, Canada, Ukraine, Austria, and New Zealand. The author justified his choice of the “Western” background category for all participants by saying “the results of the project show that the socialization that all of these speakers had undergone in Western society had shaped (or at least had played a major role in shaping) the assumptions they held regarding human interaction” (p. 9). The author also concluded that appropriate honorifics use failure by Japanese ethnicity participants was derived from a “Western” view of honorifics. However, it seems that his argument neglects the influence of social norms or “frames” of the participants’ native language. For example, heritage learners’ perceptions toward politeness might be heavily influenced by Korean culture and language rather than English while they interact with native Koreans. In addition, the Japanese participants might have failed in Korean honorifics usage, not because of a “Western” perception, but rather because of Japanese-specific perceptions toward politeness. Instead of grouping participants as having a “Western” background, a more detailed discussion of the cultural backgrounds affecting the participants’ politeness ideology, and their use of Korean honorifics, would have possibly gained more attention from researchers and instructors with students of non-western backgrounds. Furthermore, it is difficult to agree with the author’s argument on in-class teacher-student interaction without more evidence from interviews. In Chapter 8, Brown presented the analysis of interviews with participants, and concluded that pragmalinguistic skill deficit affects honorifics usage of KSL speakers. He pointed out that one reason for a lack of pragmalinguistic skill is due to in-class teacher-student interaction. Teachers don’t provide explicit feedback -- or any feedback -- for unsuccessful referent honorific use by advanced KSL speakers (p. 224). However, there is no interview data provided to support the connection between the lack of explicit feedback and referent honorific usage. There are other possible factors leading to low pragmalinguistic skill in in-class interactions. The lack of explicit feedback from the teacher can be one factor, as the author suggested. Also, it is possible that KSL learners are not sensitive enough to native Korean speakers’ feedback, as the author mentioned later in the same chapter. More likely, it is also possible that multiple factors are interacting together. Finally, one shouldn’t neglect that there might be a chance that feedback and pragmalinguistic skill are not related to each other at all. Regarding the above possibilities that can result in different conclusions from the author’s argument, Brown’s claim on the relationship between the lack of explicit feedback from teaching and students’ low pragmalinguistics skills can’t be persuasive without more evidence. This issue of the relation between these two factors can be a research question in future work. It would be very interesting to find out this relationship, which would result in a valuable contribution to the field. In sum, this monograph provides an absolutely valuable contribution to research on Korean honorifics and interlanguage pragmatics. REFERENCES Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Maryland: University Park Press. Hwang, J. (1990). ‘Deference’ versus ‘politeness’ in Korean speech. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 82, 41-55. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment. Multilingua, 8(2), 223-248. Lee, J. (2001). Kwuke kyengepep saypng-uy cenlyakcek thukseng (The characteristics of the strategic use of Korean honorifics). Ehakyenkwu (Language Research), 35(1), 91-122. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 237-262. Watts, R. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua, 8(2), 131-166. Yoo, S. (1996). Kwnke chengca taywo emi-uy kyochey sayong(switching)-kwa chengca taywupep cheykyey –him(power)-kwa yutay(solidarity)-uy cengtoseng-ey uyhan tamhwa pwunsekcek cepkun (Korean hearer honorifics and hearer honorifics switching – discourse approach based on degrees of power and solidarity). Unpublished PhD dissertation, Korea University. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Jieun Ryu is a Ph.D. student in the Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) program at the University of Arizona (UA). She currently works as a tutor for foreign language and heritage learners of Korean at the UA Critical Language Program. Her research interests include second language acquisition and pedagogy, Korean as a second/foreign language, pragmatics, and discourse analysis. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 21-Dec-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.