A Comparative Study of Argumentation Structure between Native and Non-Native Speakers of English

Abstract

The ability to think critically and to outwardly express beliefs and adequate supports is a characteristic which is commonly observable in Korean universities and higher education. Due to the increase in English medium classes, students are to participate in spoken discussions in English. Argumentation is a genre which encompasses critical thought in making judgments and decisions. The genre requires the individual to formulate claims, make judgments and decisions while coming to terms with conflicting views through spoken interaction. Argumentation not only promotes critical and rational thought, but requires proficiency in speaking and listening. These characteristics demonstrate the effectiveness of implementing the rhetorical conventions of argumentation for EFL learners. This present study aimed to examine and compare the argumentation of native speakers (NS) and learners of English (NNS) through discourse analysis. The participants were assigned into dyads based on their contrasting views on the topic of internet censorship to ensure that opposing views would facilitate argumentation. The data consisted of audio-recordings of an argumentative discussion between 5 dyads of native speakers of Korean and 5 dyads of native speakers of English. The argumentation was first analyzed by identifying the claims, counter-claims and supports at the macro-level. A closer analysis followed in the micro-level analysis where individual language used within the components of argumentation were examined. The macro-analysis revealed a specific argumentation sequence within the organization of the opening phase. Two crucial turns were identified for both the NS and NNS group. The first turn was an initiated the topic of argumentation and was followed by a second turn which determined the agreement or disagreement of the interlocutors involved. The frequency analysis of the genre specific components in the argumentation phase showed different ways in which the NS and NNS groups constructed their arguments during the interaction. The micro-analysis examined the specific language use in terms of discourse markers based on its pragmatic function. The three types of discourse markers analyzed were indicators of attitudes, opening/closing and thinking process. The discourse markers were analyzed in terms of frequency and function within the argumentation of the NS and NNS dyads. It was found that the both the NS and NNS group used discourse markers frequently throughout the interaction. The functions of the discourse markers varied greatly for the NS and NNS group. Another feature which was studied was argumentation strategies. Complex strategies of employing rhetorical questions and rebuttal were found. The strategies used by the NNS group were also identified. The different functions of these strategies indicate more awareness on the different strategies which are used within the rhetorical convention of spoken argumentation. Finally, individual interviews were conducted at the end of the argumentation for both the NS and NNS group. L2 learners were found to be lacking in their knowledge on the characteristics of this genre and were focused toward a cooperative spoken dialogue. The NS group expressed having been exposed to the genre of argumentation through debate clubs and activities in the past. The unawareness of this genre for L2 learners suggest the need for more instruction on the specific language and strategies used in spoken argumentation.;국내 대학 및 고등 교육기관에서는 논리적 사고와 의사 표현 과정을 쉽게 관찰할 수 있다. 또한 영어교육이 증가함에 따라 영어 토론에 참여할 기회도 많아 지고 있다. 논쟁(argumentation)은 비판적 사고에 기반하여 판단하고 의사결정을 하는 과정을 총괄한다. 논쟁의 참여자는 반대의견을 가진 다른 참여자와 논점을 만들고 비판하는 등 담화를 통해 토론을 이끌게 된다. 논쟁은 비판적 사고를 배양할 뿐만 아니라 듣기, 말하기 능력을 복합적으로 길러 준다. 이러한 특성 때문에 논쟁의 수사학적 기법들은 EFL학생들에게 효과적으로 사용될 수 있다. 이 논문은 원어민과 비원어민의 토론담화를 비교분석하였다. 참여자들은 ‘internet censorship’이라는 주제 하에 서로 반대되는 의견을 가진 2인 1조로 토론을 진행하였으며, 총 원어민 5개조와 비원어민 5개조의 토론을 녹음하여 분석하였다. 분석은 토론구조 등의 거시관점 분석과 논쟁에 사용된 개별 요소들을 분석하는 미시관점 분석을 실시하였다. 거시관점분석은 토론의 도입부와 논쟁부분으로 나누어 분석하였다. 도입부에서는 두 그룹 모두 논점을 제시한 뒤 상대방에 의해 동의 혹은 반박 의견을 제시하는 비슷한 패턴을 보였지만, 토론이 진행되는 동안 논쟁시 사용되는 요소들은 상이한 것으로 드러났다. 미시관점 분석은 태도(attitude), 오프닝과 클로징(opening and closing), 사고과정(thinking process) 등 담화표지의 실질적 기능 별 사용빈도를 중심으로 검토하였으며, 그 결과 원어민 비원어민간 차이가 극명하게 나타났다. 그외 원어민 비원어민간 토론 전략에 대한 이해도 및 활용도 또한 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 마지막으로 연구에 참여했던 원어민과 비원어민의 개인 인터뷰를 진행하였다. 비원어민의 경우 논쟁에 대한 장르적 이해가 부족하여 상대적으로 다이얼로그에 집중한 반면, 원어민은 토론클럽 등의 활동을 통해 장르에 이미 익숙해 있어 실질적 논쟁에 집중할 수 있었다. 이와 같은 결과를 바탕으로 비원어민의 논쟁 장르에 대한 언어사용력 증진 및 토론 전략 학습 등의 필요성을 제안하였다.