This study investigates the use of cohesive devices in the corpus of Korean college students’ compositions. In particular, it attempts to provide a comprehensive analysis of the lexico-grammatical contexts in which cohesive referential devices are employed in argumentative essays. For this purpose, a Korean EFL corpus and a native speaker corpus were analyzed based on Gray’s (2010) coding scheme. The coding scheme included variables such as the place and unit of the antecedent, the grammatical role and place of demonstratives, and their preceding or following structures. The results of the analysis showed that Korean EFL learners and native writers were similar in that they tended to use demonstrative pronouns as a subject and demonstrative determiners as objects/complements. Besides this general tendency, non-prototypical uses of the determiners were observed. The learners’ corpus manifested an overuse of an extended antecedent which could reduce the clarity of meaning. The most frequent verb following demonstrative pronouns was the copula (i.e., be) in both corpora. Finally, the learners tended to use a much smaller number of abstract/shell nouns than their native speaker counterparts.

In 1922 new curriculum standard, it establishes the principle of mixed teaching of vernacular and classical Chinese, Ye Shengtao, Zhu Ziging, and Lu Shuxiang think mixed teaching method is detrimental to Chinese teaching, and vernacular and classical Chinese should be taught separately, the teaching material should also not mixing the vernacular and classical Chinese, hence they compiled three books of “Kaiming’s Classical Chinese Reader” which only select classical Chinese literature and six books of “Kaiming’s New Chinese Language Reader” which only select vernacular Chinese literature in the 1950s. 30 years after “Kaiming’s Classical Chinese Reader” was published, in the 1980s, since there was no same property books that could replace this one, hence a new edition of “Classical Chinese Reader” is compiled and printed. Why can it exist for so long and so favored? And compared with Taiwan’s major Chinese Books published by publishers such as Tung‐Ta, Lung‐Teng and Tai‐Yu, what are the characteristics of its style, material selection, and organization? Whether there is any part that is worth learning from about its editing and selection thoughts?  This paper plans to sample some selections of literature from “Kaiming’s Classical Chinese Reader” and several Chinese Language books which have higher market ratio in Taiwan, and compare their similarities and differences, and further discuss how we can improve and refine our selection and editing method on Classical Language Textbooks for current time. 

This study aims to investigate how Korean EFL college students' argumentative essays are similar to or different from those of native English speakers (NES) in the use of reference, with the consideration of Korean students' level of Engli sh proficiency. It employed both quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine referential use for estab lishing textual cohesion of wri tten discourse. The participants were 30 native English speakers and 61 Korean EFL college students, with 31 high proficiency students and 30 low proficiency students. Detai led examination on the use of referential devices revealed important findings. For example, the syntactic role of the reference influenced the relative difficulty for the Korean EFL students. When referring to nominal items, whereas the Korean EFL students did as well as the NES in referential choices in subject positions, they underused references in other syntactic roles, such as object and possessive positions. They also made different referential choices in one of the major functions of demonstratives. That is, whereas the NES mostly used demonstrative this when referring to extended text in the preced ing discourse, both levels of the Korean EFL students preferred pronoun it for such function. The present study holds important pedagogical implications with regard to L2 writing pedagogy.

This paper considers various marked practices by which speakers of English refer to people, including themselves and others, when conversing with their interlocutors. It shows that parties in a conversation sometimes deploy marked ways of reference in order to accomplish various non-referential (i.e., interactional) undertakings. This paper aims to contribute not only to a better understanding of English speakers' referential practices, but also to the teaching of English to Korean leamers to whom these marked language use may not be well known. The knowledge of these marked uses can be a very useful interactional resource for the leamers and may obviate possible interactional troubles when they interact in the target culture.

Korean Oriental Medicine has unequal access to some common linguistic resources that it shares with biomedicine under the dual medical system. At the societal level, the biomedical linguistic hegemonies allow biomedicine to unmark its entities, while mark Oriental ones with han- ‘Korean,’ as the prequel to the present study (Kim 2015c) illustrates. However, there has been little research that investigates the unmarking norms at the (intra-)institutional level of Oriental consultations in reference to those within the discourse of Oriental medicine itself. Noting the gap in research, the present study explores the Oriental interactions that are apparently immune to the societally imposed (un)marking norms and investigates the types, distributions, and meanings (in particular, referential specificity) of the unmarked references to Oriental entities. To do so, it qualitatively analyzes selections from a data set of 15-hour-long naturally-occurring consultations between Oriental doctors and their patients. The findings demonstrate that Oriental interactions frequently form a linguistic enclave, the intra-institutional norms within which regulate that the references to Oriental doctors, clinics, and medications be unmarked. Within the enclave, the unmarked uysas make a reference to a generic Oriental doctor or doctors, while the unmarked first-mention sensayngnim, albeit a rare example, to a specific Oriental doctor (more specifically, the chief doctor). The unmarked first-mention pyengwens, mostly disambiguated by the proximal deictic expressions, refer to the specific Oriental institutions at which the interactions are in progress. The unmarked first-mention yaks refer to specific Oriental medications, whereas the unmarked to a generic one. The apparent contradiction between the findings of the present study and those of the prequel is not surprising at all, but rather is indicative of the very “heteroglossia” (Bakhtin 1984) under the dual medical system in Korea. That is, the references to either of the medicines under the dual system can go unmarked while abiding by a respective set of the referential norms, albeit at different levels: one at the intra-institutional level and the other at the inter-institutional and societal level. Their distributions are also discussed on qualitative and ethnographic terms.

This study attempts to identify how much Korean arguments are pro-dropped or overtly occur in narratives1 by introducing referential density values in Korean. Referential density studies in linguistics have recently started by Bickel (2003) and Noonan (2003a, 2003b). The referential density values of a language mean the ratio of how many NP arguments overtly occur in the smallest unit for the discourse analysis (Bickel 2003, Stoll and Bickel 2009; Noonan 2003a, 2003b). The present study pays attention to referential density in Korean with the narratives of the ‘Frog Story’. First, the handbook of referential density values (Noonan 2003b) is introduced; second, it is presented how the guidelines of the handbook can be applied to the structure of the Korean narratives; third, the results of calculating the referential density values in Korean follow the Korean narrative structure; and finally, it is discussed what the results indicate and what this research can contribute to the future studies.