사회 문제와 시민 언어Social and Civic Issues
Chapter Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Discuss common social and civic issues in contemporary South Korean public life using level-appropriate institutional vocabulary.
- State a claim about a public issue carefully, distinguishing what is established from what is uncertain or contested.
- Use hedging and evidential language to avoid overstating a claim, especially where data or outcomes are incomplete.
- Identify and use institutional vocabulary for public bodies, policy, and civic participation.
- Read and summarize a short passage analyzing a civic issue, identifying claims, hedges, and institutional actors.
- Write and speak about a civic issue while maintaining careful, non-absolute claims and consistent formal register.
This chapter continues Unit II, 미디어와 공공 쟁점 (Media and Public Issues), moving from the formal spoken interaction of Chapter 7 into the vocabulary and careful claim-making needed to analyze social and civic issues. It introduces institutional vocabulary and careful-claim hedging language as new productive systems, while continuing to consolidate turn-taking, stance-marking, and clarification from Chapter 7.
Opening Scenario
After the radio roundtable, 박 교수님 assigns the class a short written brief on a social issue affecting their community: rising one-person households near campus and the strain this places on local housing and public services. 수아 notices that the draft claims she sees from classmates tend to overstate what is actually known — "이 문제는 완전히 해결되었다" (this problem has been completely solved) where the source only says a pilot program showed some improvement. 박 교수님 explains that public and civic writing carries a particular responsibility: claims about social issues affect how people understand institutions, policy, and each other, so a careful writer marks what is established, what is likely, and what remains uncertain. Today's goal is to build the institutional vocabulary needed to discuss civic issues accurately, and to practice making claims that are careful rather than absolute.
- You will learn vocabulary for public institutions, policy processes, and civic participation.
- You will learn hedging and evidential language for making careful, non-absolute claims about social issues.
- You will read and discuss a short civic-issue passage, then write and speak your own careful analysis of a public issue.
Unit II Overview
Unit II, 미디어와 공공 쟁점 (Media and Public Issues), runs from Chapter 6 through Chapter 10. It builds media literacy, formal spoken interaction, civic vocabulary, and general legal/administrative awareness before a unit assessment in Chapter 10.
| Chapter | Focus | Principal new systems |
|---|---|---|
| Ch. 6 | Reading Media Critically | headline style, framing, source voice, report structure |
| Ch. 7 | Interviews and Public Discussion | formal spoken Korean, turns, stance, clarification |
| Ch. 8 | Social and Civic Issues | public issue analysis, careful claims, institutional vocabulary |
| Ch. 9 | Legal and Administrative Language for General Purposes | rights/obligations vocabulary, forms, restrictions, boundaries |
| Ch. 10 | Unit II Assessment | media dossier and public explanation (consolidation only) |
Chapter 8 draws on the source-attribution and report structure from Chapter 6 and the stance-marking and clarification language from Chapter 7, applying them to written and spoken analysis of a civic issue.
Core Vocabulary
The following items support discussing social and civic issues, public institutions, and careful claims at a B2–C1 level. All items are productive unless labeled receptive.
| Korean | Category | Meaning | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 사회 문제 | noun phrase | social issue, social problem | — |
| 시민 | noun | citizen | 시민 의식 (civic awareness) |
| 시민 사회 | noun phrase | civil society | — |
| 공공 기관 | noun phrase | public institution, public body | — |
| 지방자치단체 | noun | local government | often shortened to 지자체 |
| 정책 | noun | policy | 정책을 시행하다 (to implement a policy) |
| 시행하다 | action verb | to implement, to put into effect | — |
| 제도 | noun | system, institution (abstract) | 복지 제도 (welfare system) |
| 복지 | noun | welfare | — |
| 1인 가구 | noun phrase | one-person household | — |
| 주거 | noun | housing, dwelling (formal) | 주거 문제 (housing problem) |
| 부담 | noun | burden | 부담을 지다/느끼다 (to bear/feel a burden) |
| 격차 | noun | gap, disparity | 소득 격차 (income gap) |
| 불평등 | noun | inequality | — |
| 고령화 | noun | population aging | 고령화 사회 (aging society) |
| 저출산 | noun | low birthrate | — |
| 공청회 | noun | public hearing | — |
| 여론 | noun | public opinion | 여론 조사 (opinion poll) |
| 시민 참여 | noun phrase | civic participation | — |
| 서명 운동 | noun phrase | signature campaign, petition drive | — |
| 개선하다 | action verb | to improve, to make better | — |
| 완화하다 | action verb | to ease, to alleviate | 부담을 완화하다 (to ease a burden) |
| 해소하다 | action verb | to resolve, to relieve (a problem) | — |
| ~는 것으로 보인다 | pattern | it appears/seems that ~ | evidential hedge |
| ~는 경향이 있다 | pattern | there is a tendency for ~ | hedge for a general pattern, not universal |
| 단정하기는 이르다 | phrase | it is too early to conclude definitively | — |
| 일부에서는 | phrase | some (parties/observers) ~ | limits scope of a claim |
| 전반적으로 | adverb | overall, generally | — |
| 모든 경우에 그런 것은 아니다 | phrase | this is not the case in every instance | counter-generalization hedge |
| 근본적인 원인 | noun phrase | underlying/root cause | — |
| 일시적 | adjective/noun | temporary | 일시적 효과 (temporary effect) |
| 지속 가능하다 | descriptive verb | to be sustainable | — |
| 실효성 | noun | practical effectiveness | 실효성이 있다/없다 |
| 통계 | noun | statistics | — |
| 자료에 따르면 | phrase | according to the data | source-marking, from Ch. 6 |
| 이해관계자 | noun | stakeholder | — |
| 취약 계층 | noun phrase | vulnerable population/group | register: formal, institutional |
| 지원하다 | action verb | to support, to provide assistance | — |
| 예산 | noun | budget | 예산을 편성하다 (to allocate a budget) |
| 공론화하다 | action verb | to bring to public discussion | receptive-leaning, formal media/civic term |
Receptive/analytical items in this chapter: 공론화하다. This may be recognized and discussed but is not independently assessed as productive vocabulary.
Pronunciation Focus
Careful, hedged claims such as 단정하기는 이르지만 are typically produced with a flatter, more even stress pattern than a confident assertion, since a speaker signals caution partly through pacing as well as wording. Avoid placing heavy emphatic stress on a hedge phrase, which can make the caution sound sarcastic or dismissive rather than sincere.
Sino-Korean institutional compounds such as 지방자치단체 and 취약 계층 should be practiced as whole units at natural speed rather than syllable by syllable, since a learner who over-separates the syllables can sound as if spelling the word rather than saying it.
Grammar and Sentence Patterns
This chapter introduces careful-claim hedging and institutional vocabulary patterns as new productive systems. It builds on source attribution from Chapter 6 and stance-marking from Chapter 7, applying them specifically to civic and social-issue analysis, where overstating a claim can misrepresent a policy, an institution, or a population.
1. Softening a Claim with Evidential Hedges
When a claim about a social issue is based on limited or partial evidence, formal Korean marks this with hedging patterns rather than presenting the claim as settled fact.
- 이 정책은 주거 부담을 완화하는 것으로 보인다.This policy appears to ease the housing burden.-는 것으로 보인다 = "it appears that," softens a causal claim
- 1인 가구가 증가하면서 관련 문제도 늘어나는 경향이 있다.As one-person households increase, related problems also tend to increase.-는 경향이 있다 = "there is a tendency," marks a pattern rather than a universal rule
- 아직 단정하기는 이르지만, 초기 결과는 긍정적이다.It is still too early to say definitively, but the initial results are positive.단정하기는 이르다 = explicit caution marker before a claim
2. Limiting the Scope of a Claim
Careful civic writing distinguishes a general pattern from a universal rule, and distinguishes one group's view from a consensus.
- 일부에서는 이 제도가 효과가 없다고 주장한다.Some (observers/parties) argue that this system has no effect.일부에서는 = limits the claim to a subset, not everyone
- 모든 지역에서 그런 것은 아니다.This is not the case in every region.모든 ~ 그런 것은 아니다 = explicit counter-generalization
- 전반적으로 개선되었지만, 지역별 격차는 여전히 남아 있다.Overall it has improved, but regional gaps still remain.전반적으로 + -지만 = general claim followed by an explicit limitation
3. Distinguishing Cause, Correlation, and Temporary Effect
Public policy claims often confuse a temporary effect with a lasting solution, or a correlation with a root cause. Careful language marks this distinction explicitly.
- 이 조치는 일시적인 효과에 그칠 수 있다.This measure may amount to only a temporary effect.일시적 + -에 그치다 = "amount to only," limits the claim's durability
- 근본적인 원인을 해결하지 않으면 지속 가능하지 않을 것이다.Without addressing the underlying cause, it will not be sustainable.근본적인 원인 + -지 않으면 = condition marking what a claim depends on
- 두 현상 사이에 관련은 있지만, 원인이라고 단정할 수는 없다.There is a relationship between the two phenomena, but it cannot be stated definitively as a cause.explicit correlation-vs-causation caution
4. Institutional and Policy Vocabulary in Sentences
Institutional vocabulary from this chapter's core list combines with familiar predicates from earlier chapters (시행하다, 지원하다, 개선하다, 해소하다) rather than requiring new grammar of its own.
- 지방자치단체가 새로운 지원 정책을 시행했다.The local government implemented a new support policy.
- 공청회에서 여러 이해관계자의 의견을 들었다.Various stakeholders' opinions were heard at the public hearing.
[자료/근거 표시] + [완화된 주장: 것으로 보인다/경향이 있다] + [범위 제한: 일부에서는/모든 ~ 아니다] + [남은 문제 명시]
자료/근거 표시 = source marking; 완화된 주장 = softened claim; 범위 제한 = scope limitation; 남은 문제 = remaining issue named explicitly
시 자료에 따르면 1인 가구를 위한 주거 지원 정책이 부담을 완화하는 것으로 보이지만, 일부에서는 예산이 부족해 모든 신청자를 지원하지 못한다고 지적한다.
According to city data, the housing support policy for one-person households appears to be easing the burden, but some point out that the budget is insufficient to support every applicant.
Practice — Hedging and Scope
- Rewrite this overstated claim more carefully: "이 정책은 문제를 완전히 해결했다."
- Write one sentence using 일부에서는 to limit a claim about a social issue to a subset of people.
- Write one sentence distinguishing a temporary effect from a lasting solution, using 일시적 and 지속 가능하다.
Model Text: Civic Forum Excerpt
박 교수님 shares a short transcript excerpt from a neighborhood civic forum on rising one-person households, illustrating institutional vocabulary and careful claims alongside the turn-taking and stance-marking language from Chapter 7.
Context: a neighborhood civic forum near campus. 진행자 is the moderator; 정민수 is a local government official; 박서연 is a resident representative.
구조 분석 — Structure analysis questions:
- Identify the evidential hedge 정민수 uses when describing the trend in housing demand.
- Identify the scope-limiting phrase 박서연 uses to qualify the claim about improvement.
- Which speaker distinguishes a temporary measure from addressing a root cause, and what phrase is used?
Guided Practice
- Choose a familiar social or civic issue (real or invented; it may build on the housing issue used above).
- Write one sentence stating a claim about the issue, using an evidential hedge such as -는 것으로 보인다 or -는 경향이 있다.
- Write one sentence limiting the scope of your claim, using 일부에서는 or 모든 ~ 그런 것은 아니다.
- Write one sentence naming a remaining problem or an underlying cause not yet resolved.
- Write one sentence using at least one piece of institutional vocabulary from this chapter (예: 지방자치단체, 정책, 예산, 공청회).
- Exchange with a partner and identify each other's hedge, scope limitation, and institutional vocabulary.
Listening Practice
Ask your instructor, a language partner, or a text-to-speech tool to read the following short passage aloud at a measured, formal pace. Listen twice without reading, then complete the tasks below.
토론 발췌: 고령화와 지역 복지
사회자: 오늘은 지역 고령화와 복지 제도에 대해 이야기해 보겠습니다. 통계에 따르면 이 지역의 고령 인구 비율이 꾸준히 늘고 있는 것으로 보입니다. 패널: 저도 한 말씀 드려도 될까요? 그 통계는 맞지만, 일부에서는 지원 예산이 충분하지 않다고 지적합니다. 사회자: 방금 말씀하신 예산 문제가 구체적으로 어떤 부분을 말하는지 여쭤봐도 될까요? 패널: 취약 계층을 위한 돌봄 서비스 예산이 특히 부족하다는 점을 말씀드리는 겁니다. 전반적으로 제도는 개선되고 있지만, 근본적인 문제가 해소되었다고 단정하기는 이릅니다.
듣기 과제 — Listening task: Listen and answer in English.
| 질문 | 답 |
|---|---|
| What claim does the moderator make, and what hedge softens it? | ______ |
| What scope-limiting phrase does the panelist use? | ______ |
| What specific budget concern does the panelist clarify? | ______ |
| How does the panelist avoid overstating that the problem is fully resolved? | ______ |
Reading Practice
Read the following short civic-issue passage, then answer the questions that follow.
글: 캠퍼스 인근 1인 가구 주거 지원 정책 분석
최근 몇 년간 캠퍼스 인근 지역에서 1인 가구가 빠르게 증가하고 있다. 시 자료에 따르면 이는 소형 주택에 대한 수요 증가로 이어지는 것으로 보이며, 이에 지방자치단체는 지난해부터 주거 지원 정책을 시행하고 있다. 이 정책은 취약 계층에 속하는 학생과 청년 1인 가구를 대상으로 임대료 일부를 지원하는 방식으로 운영된다. 초기 결과는 긍정적인 것으로 보이며, 지원을 받은 가구의 주거비 부담이 다소 완화되는 경향이 있다. 그러나 일부에서는 예산이 제한되어 있어 신청자 전원이 지원을 받는 것은 아니라는 점을 지적한다. 전반적으로 개선되고 있다고 볼 수 있지만, 근본적인 원인인 소형 주택 공급 부족이 해소되었다고 단정하기는 이르다. 지방자치단체는 공급 확대를 위한 별도 계획도 검토 중이라고 밝혔다.
내용 이해 — Comprehension questions:
- What trend does the passage describe, and what evidential hedge is used to introduce it?
- Who does the housing support policy target, and how does it work?
- What scope-limiting phrase qualifies the claim that the policy is helping?
- What underlying cause does the passage identify as unresolved?
- Identify one sentence that distinguishes a temporary improvement from a lasting solution.
- Compare this passage's careful claim-making to the overstated claim in the Grammar section's practice exercise (1). What specifically makes this passage more careful?
Writing Workshop
This chapter's writing task asks you to write a short analytical paragraph (6–10 sentences) about a familiar campus or public issue, including at least one source-marked claim, one evidential hedge, one scope-limiting expression, and one clearly identified remaining problem or underlying cause.
[정책/제도 소개, 기관 명시]
[완화된 주장: -는 것으로 보인다/경향이 있다]
[범위 제한: 일부에서는/모든 ~ 그런 것은 아니다]
[남은 문제 또는 근본적인 원인 명시]
[Introduce the policy/system, name the institution]
[Softened claim: it appears / there is a tendency]
[Scope limitation: some argue / not the case for everyone]
[Name the remaining problem or underlying cause]
- Introduce the issue. Choose a familiar issue and state it with a source marker from Chapter 6 (예: 자료에 따르면).
- Name the institution or policy. Identify the public body, policy, or system involved, using this chapter's institutional vocabulary.
- Make a careful claim. State what the policy or trend appears to do, using an evidential hedge.
- Limit the scope. Add a sentence limiting the claim to a subset of cases or noting an exception.
- Name what remains unresolved. Close by identifying a remaining problem or underlying cause not yet addressed.
체크리스트 — Checklist:
- At least one source-marked claim is included.
- At least one institutional vocabulary item is used correctly.
- At least one evidential hedge softens a claim appropriately.
- At least one scope-limiting expression is used.
- A remaining problem or underlying cause is explicitly named.
- No claim states a social issue as completely and permanently solved.
- Spacing, particles, and Hangeul spelling are accurate, with no romanization.
- No structure beyond Chapters 1–8 has been used productively.
Speaking Practice
통제 연습 — Controlled practice: 문장 다듬기
Practice converting three overstated claims (provided by your instructor or a partner) into carefully hedged claims aloud, using the patterns from this chapter's Grammar section.
의사소통 과제 — Communicative task: 시민 포럼
With one or two partners, hold a short discussion modeled on the civic forum above, discussing a familiar social issue. Use at least one piece of institutional vocabulary, one evidential hedge, and one scope-limiting expression, along with the floor-claiming and stance-marking language from Chapter 7.
혼자 하는 연습 — Solo alternative
Record yourself presenting a two-minute careful analysis of a familiar social issue, using at least two hedges and one scope-limiting expression. Listen back and identify each one aloud.
Culture and Communication
Public hearings (공청회) and similar civic forums are one common way that South Korean local governments and institutions gather resident input before or during policy implementation. Participation formats and the degree of influence such forums have on final policy vary by locality and issue, so learners should avoid assuming that a single format applies everywhere.
In formal Korean public and civic discourse, claims about social problems are often explicitly hedged, particularly when data is preliminary, a policy is newly implemented, or a population is described as vulnerable. This caution reflects a general norm of responsible public communication rather than a lack of confidence in one's position, and it appears across many institutional and media contexts, not only in Korean.
Local governments (지방자치단체) across South Korea may use somewhat different program names, application procedures, and terminology for similar social support policies. The vocabulary in this chapter reflects common, general institutional terms; a learner encountering a specific municipality's materials should expect some local variation in exact program names.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Error: Writing 이 정책은 문제를 완전히 해결했다 based on limited or preliminary evidence.
Correction: Use an evidential hedge such as 이 정책은 문제를 완화하는 것으로 보인다, which reflects what the evidence actually supports.
Error: Writing 모두가 이 제도에 반대한다 when only some stakeholders have expressed opposition.
Correction: Use a scope-limiting phrase such as 일부에서는 이 제도에 반대한다, which accurately reflects a partial rather than universal claim.
Error: Describing a short-term measure as if it had permanently resolved an underlying social problem.
Correction: Distinguish the two explicitly, as in 이 조치는 일시적인 효과에 그칠 수 있으며, 근본적인 원인은 아직 해소되지 않았다.
Chapter Review
Section A — 어휘 (Vocabulary)
1. Match the following items to their meanings: 지방자치단체, 취약 계층, 격차, 공청회, 예산.
Section B — 문법 (Grammar)
1. Write one sentence using an evidential hedge (-는 것으로 보인다 or -는 경향이 있다) about a social issue of your choice.
2. Write one sentence using a scope-limiting phrase (일부에서는 or 모든 ~ 그런 것은 아니다).
Section C — 독해 이해 (Reading Comprehension)
1. Summarize the housing support policy passage in four or five English sentences, identifying the claim, the hedge, the scope limitation, and the unresolved cause.
Section D — 쓰기 (Writing)
1. Complete the Writing Workshop paragraph, following the steps and checklist above.
Section E — 말하기 (Speaking)
1. Perform your civic forum discussion or solo presentation, as described in Speaking Practice above.
누적 복습 — Cumulative review
This chapter recycles formal register discipline (Chapter 1), institutional and procedural vocabulary (Chapter 2), comparison language (Chapter 3), evidence-based claims (Chapters 4–5), source attribution and report structure (Chapter 6), and turn-taking, stance-marking, and clarification (Chapter 7), while introducing careful-claim hedging and expanded institutional vocabulary as new productive systems.
Practical Performance Task
수행 과제 — Chapter 8 Performance Task
사회 문제 분석 — Analyzing a Social Issue Carefully
You will read a civic-issue passage and answer comprehension questions, listen to a related discussion excerpt, write your own careful analytical paragraph, and present or discuss your analysis with attention to institutional vocabulary and careful claims.
- Reading: Read the housing support policy passage and answer the comprehension questions above.
- Listening: Listen to the aging and welfare passage and answer the listening task questions above.
- Writing: Write a complete short analytical paragraph following the Writing Workshop model and checklist.
- Speaking: Perform the civic forum discussion or solo presentation, using at least one institutional vocabulary item, one evidential hedge, and one scope-limiting expression.
| Criterion | What is evaluated |
|---|---|
| Reading and listening comprehension | Claims, hedges, and scope limitations are correctly identified in both passages |
| Institutional vocabulary | Public/civic vocabulary is used accurately and appropriately |
| Careful claim-making | At least one evidential hedge and one scope-limiting expression are used correctly |
| Unresolved-issue identification | A remaining problem or underlying cause is clearly and accurately named |
| Register consistency | Formal deferential register is maintained throughout |
| Cumulative integration | Turn-taking and stance-marking from Chapter 7 are integrated where relevant |
| Hangeul and spacing accuracy | Accurate spelling and level-appropriate spacing throughout, no romanization |
| Scope discipline | No structures used productively beyond Volume IV, Chapters 1–8 |
Answer Key
Model Text — Structure Analysis
- 정민수 uses the evidential hedge 늘어나는 경향이 있습니다 to soften the claim about growing housing demand.
- 박서연 uses the scope-limiting phrase 모든 신청자가 지원을 받는 것은 아니라는 점 to qualify the claim of improvement.
- 정민수 distinguishes a temporary measure from addressing a root cause, using the phrase 근본적인 원인인 소형 주택 공급 부족을 해소하기 위한 별도 계획.
Listening comprehension
- The moderator claims the aging population ratio is steadily increasing, softened with 늘고 있는 것으로 보입니다.
- The panelist uses 일부에서는 to limit the claim that the support budget is insufficient.
- The panelist clarifies that the care-service budget for vulnerable populations is specifically insufficient.
- The panelist avoids overstating resolution by saying 근본적인 문제가 해소되었다고 단정하기는 이릅니다.
Reading comprehension
- The passage describes rising one-person households near campus, introduced with the hedge 수요 증가로 이어지는 것으로 보이며.
- The policy targets students and young one-person households classified as a vulnerable population, and works by subsidizing part of their rent.
- The scope-limiting phrase is 신청자 전원이 지원을 받는 것은 아니라는 점.
- The unresolved underlying cause is the shortage of small housing supply.
- The sentence 전반적으로 개선되고 있다고 볼 수 있지만, 근본적인 원인인 소형 주택 공급 부족이 해소되었다고 단정하기는 이르다 distinguishes a general improvement from a fully resolved underlying cause.
- The passage is more careful because it uses evidential hedges, names a specific limiting condition (budget), and explicitly states that the root cause remains unresolved, rather than declaring the problem solved.
Chapter Review — Section B
1. Sample response: 최근 지역 내 소득 격차가 다소 줄어드는 것으로 보인다.
2. Sample response: 일부에서는 이 정책이 실효성이 없다고 주장한다.
Section D — Sample response
Check that: a source-marked claim, at least one institutional vocabulary item, one evidential hedge, one scope-limiting expression, and a clearly named remaining problem or underlying cause are all present, and that no claim describes the issue as completely and permanently solved.
Looking Ahead
지금 할 수 있는 것 — What you can do now
You can discuss common social and civic issues using appropriate institutional vocabulary, state a claim about a public issue carefully using evidential hedges, limit the scope of a claim rather than overgeneralizing, and identify what remains unresolved rather than declaring a problem completely solved, while maintaining consistent formal register.