The objective of this study is to create a list of communication-focused Korean discourse markers for Chinese Korean learners.

Discourse marker is a kind of pragmatic device used to effectively carry out dialogue or indicate the attitude, intention, and mental state of the speaker. It can facilitate smoother interaction between the speaker and listener. Up until now, most of the studies are had been focused on the function, use, and comparison of discourse markers. However, there are few studies on the actual use of discourse markers by native speakers and the educational status of Korean discourse markers for Chinese Korean learners, and there is no research on the use of this data to develop a list of discourse markers for them. Therefore, this study discusses the use of spoken discourse markers by Korean native speakers and Chinese native speakers, as well as the current status of discourse markers education in Korean textbooks, in order to make up for these shortcomings. Based on this, this study addresses the overlooked aspect of Korean discourse markers education and compiles a list of discourse markers for Chinese Korean learners. At this point, this study differs from Advanced Research.

In Chapter 2, this study discusses the theoretical background of discourse markers in order to understand their functionality. The results show that the features of Korean and Chinese discourse markers are almost the same, and the concept of Korean and Chinese discourse markers can be organized into the same category.

According to the comprehensive functional of discourse markers proposed in Advanced Research, this study divides the function of discourse markers into two categories: "discourse cohesive function" and "listener-speaker Interaction function". However, this functional analysis framework cannot generalize all discourse markers appearing in a spoken corpus. Therefore, this study also discusses the content and functions of individual discourse markers in greater detail. After completion, the final discourse markers functional analysis framework can be divided into three main components: "speaker's topic processing function", "listener-speaker Interaction function", and "speaker's attitude expression function". First of all, the "speaker's topic processing function" includes the functions of "topic start", "topic change", "correction", "termination" and "conjunctive function". The "speaker-listener interaction function" includes five components: "focusing attention", "turn-talking", "limiting the range of utterance", "utterance maintenance" and "listener response". The "speaker's attitude expression function" includes "strengthening", "weakening", "negative attitude", "astonishment", "Exclaim", "disappointment and interruption", and "non-interventional attitude".

In Chapter 3, this paper selects the spoken corpus that can analyze the functionality of discourse markers. This study watched a total of 5,000 minutes of video materials, including 1,000 minutes of Korean and Chinese TV dramas, 1,000 minutes of Korean and Chinese TV entertainment shows, and 500 minutes of Korean and Chinese Internet entertainment broadcasts, in order to understand the use of Verbal discourse markers. This study transcribes the lines according to the speaker's pronunciation in order to reflect the spoken features of the dialogue. The discourse markers expressed in dialects are excluded.

This study develops a standard for recognizing discourse markers in order to extract them from spoken materials. This study applies the same standard when analyzing Korean and Chinese spoken corpora. This study examined colloquial data in Korean and Chinese using the same criteria. It identified and extracted discourse markers of Korean and Chinese based on whether the ingredients were independent, only procedural meaning remained, if they performed discourse functions, and whether they had phonological characteristics.

To ensure maximum objectivity of the spoken corpora, I transcribed it three times. During the initial viewing, I reviewed the Korean and Chinese video materials over all, focusing on transcribing the utterances that included discourse markers. During the first viewing, I examined whether the functional analysis framework used in this study could encompass all discourse markers in the spoken corpora. I also assessed the presence of any missing types of discourse markers, and analyzed the connection between the framework and the items. The results revealed that the initial functional analysis framework failed to summarize all the discourse markers in the spoken corpora. Therefore, I modified and supplemented the framework. During the second viewing, the discourse markers that appear in the spoken data are rearranged. Finally, after the third viewing, the missing parts in the first and second transcriptions have been modified and supplemented. Through analysis, this study aims to sort out the use of discourse markers in the two countries and the differences between them.

In Chapter 4, this study analyzes the discourse markers that appear in nine Korean textbooks and compares their usage with that of Korean discourse markers in Chapter 3. Through analysis, we gain an understanding of the differences between the two and the issues that exist in Korean discourse marker education. Through observation, many shortcomings have been found in the use of current Korean textbooks to educate Chinese Korean learners about discourse markers.

In Chapter 5, this study selects 163 different types of Korean discourse markers specifically for Chinese Korean learners to compensate for the limitations of discourse makers education. According to the difficulty, I divided the discourse markers into three levels: elementary, intermediate, and advanced.

This study holds research value for the selecting and grading of discourse markers among Chinese Korean learners. These contents can be used in the education of discourse marker for Chinese Korean learners, as well as in the compilation of Korean textbooks.