자료와 출처 관리Sources and Documentation
Chapter Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
- Attribute a claim to a specific source using formal citation language, distinguishing a source's own words from a paraphrase of those words.
- Paraphrase a short passage in your own words, using paraphrase markers such as 다시 말해 and 요컨대 without simply substituting a few synonyms.
- Evaluate and describe a source's reliability using vocabulary such as 신뢰할 만하다, 출처가 분명하다, and 근거가 부족하다.
- Read a short passage together with two secondary sources and correctly identify which claims are attributed, paraphrased, or flagged as unreliable.
- Listen to a short academic consultation and identify how a speaker questions a source's reliability.
- Write a short source note that attributes a claim, paraphrases it accurately, and comments on the source's reliability, using consistent formal register.
This chapter opens Unit III, 연구와 고급 글쓰기 (Research and Advanced Writing). It builds directly on the source-attribution and hedging habits developed in Unit II (Chapters 6–10), particularly the report-structure and careful-claim language recycled in the Chapter 10 dossier task.
Opening Scenario
수아 and 마이클 begin a short research project for 박 교수님's class on local public-issue reporting. 박 교수님 tells them that a well-documented paper does three things a media dossier does not always require: it clearly separates a source's exact words from the writer's own paraphrase, it states why each source can or cannot be trusted, and it never lets a paraphrase drift so far from the original that it changes the source's meaning. 수아 notices that this is close to what she already practiced with hedged claims in Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 — but now she must also say, explicitly, how reliable each source is, and show her reader exactly where her own words end and the source's claim begins.
- You will learn vocabulary and sentence patterns for citing a source, paraphrasing it, and commenting on its reliability.
- You will read a short passage alongside two secondary sources and evaluate them.
- You will listen to a short academic consultation about source reliability.
- You will write and present a short source note combining citation, paraphrase, and a reliability comment.
Unit III Overview
Unit III, 연구와 고급 글쓰기 (Research and Advanced Writing), runs from Chapter 11 through Chapter 15. Chapter 11 opens the unit by introducing citation, paraphrase, attribution, and reliability language, which the rest of the unit will build on.
| Chapter | Focus | Principal language development |
|---|---|---|
| Ch. 11 | Sources and Documentation | citation language, paraphrase, attribution, reliability |
| Ch. 12 | Academic Writing | abstract nouns, nominal style, argument sections |
| Ch. 13 | Formal Presentation and Questions | presentation language, Q&A, prepared formal speech |
| Ch. 14 | Mediation for Different Audiences | audience adaptation, summary, register transfer |
| Ch. 15 | Unit III Assessment | research-based written and oral task |
Chapter 11 introduces two major new productive systems: formal citation/attribution patterns and paraphrase-marking patterns. It does not introduce a new speech level, new honorific system, or new counter system.
Core Vocabulary
This chapter's productive vocabulary centers on citation, paraphrase, and source reliability. Predicates are listed with dictionary form and chapter-appropriate usable form.
| Korean | Category | Meaning | Register / Collocation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 자료 | noun | material; data; source(s) | 자료를 찾다, 자료에 따르면 |
| 출처 | noun | source (of information) | 출처를 밝히다, 출처가 분명하다 |
| 출처를 밝히다 | action verb; dictionary form 밝히다; usable form 밝혀요/밝힙니다 | to state/reveal a source | formal, academic |
| 인용하다 | action verb; usable form 인용해요/인용합니다 | to quote; to cite | formal, academic |
| 인용문 | noun | a quotation; quoted passage | 직접 인용문, 인용문을 넣다 |
| 재인용하다 | action verb; usable form 재인용해요/재인용합니다 | to quote secondhand (a source quoting another source) | academic; register-marked |
| 근거 | noun | basis; grounds; evidence | 근거가 있다/부족하다, 근거를 제시하다 |
| 근거를 제시하다 | action verb phrase | to provide grounds/evidence | formal, academic |
| 신뢰하다 | action verb; usable form 신뢰해요/신뢰합니다 | to trust | formal |
| 신뢰성 | noun | reliability; credibility | 신뢰성이 높다/낮다 |
| 신뢰할 만하다 | descriptive verb | to be trustworthy; worth trusting | formal, academic |
| 출처가 분명하다 | descriptive verb phrase | the source is clear/identifiable | formal; reliability comment |
| 출처가 불분명하다 | descriptive verb phrase | the source is unclear/unidentifiable | formal; reliability comment |
| 근거가 부족하다 | descriptive verb phrase | the grounds/evidence are insufficient | formal; reliability comment |
| 검증하다 | action verb; usable form 검증해요/검증합니다 | to verify | formal, academic |
| 검증되다 | action verb (passive-like) | to be verified | 검증된 자료, 검증되지 않은 주장 |
| 편향되다 | action verb | to be biased | 편향된 시각, 편향되어 있다 |
| 객관적 | noun/modifier | objective | 객관적인 자료, 객관적으로 |
| 주관적 | noun/modifier | subjective | 주관적인 견해 |
| 발췌하다 | action verb | to excerpt | 일부를 발췌하다 |
| 요약하다 | action verb; usable form 요약해요/요약합니다 | to summarize | formal, academic |
| 재진술하다 | action verb | to restate (in one's own words) | academic; paraphrase context |
| 바꾸어 말하다 | action verb phrase | to say in other words | 다시 말해, 바꾸어 말하면 |
| 다시 말해 | discourse marker | in other words | paraphrase marker |
| 요컨대 | discourse marker | in short; to sum up | formal; summary marker |
| 즉 | discourse marker | that is; namely | formal, academic |
| 이에 따르면 | discourse marker phrase | according to this (recycled/expanded from Ch. 6, 8) | formal citation |
| 참고 문헌 | noun | reference; bibliography | 참고 문헌 목록 |
| 각주 | noun | footnote | 각주를 달다 |
| 표절 | noun | plagiarism | 표절을 하다/피하다 |
| 표절하다 | action verb | to plagiarize | formal; academic-integrity term |
| 저자 | noun | author | 저자에 따르면 |
| 원문 | noun | original text | 원문 그대로, 원문을 확인하다 |
| 일차 자료 | noun phrase | primary source | academic term |
| 이차 자료 | noun phrase | secondary source | academic term |
| 공신력 | noun | public credibility (of an institution/publication) | 공신력이 있다 |
| 기관 | noun | institution | recycled from Ch. 2, 8 |
| 전문가 | noun | expert | 전문가의 의견 |
| 의견 | noun | opinion | 전문가의 의견에 따르면 |
| 사실 | noun | fact | 사실과 의견을 구분하다 |
| 구분하다 | action verb | to distinguish | 사실과 의견을 구분하다 |
| 확인되다 | action verb | to be confirmed | recycled/expanded from Ch. 8 |
| 뒷받침하다 | action verb | to support/back up (a claim) | 주장을 뒷받침하다 |
| 주장 | noun | claim; assertion | recycled from Ch. 8 |
| 모순되다 | action verb | to contradict | 두 자료가 서로 모순된다 |
| 비교하다 | action verb | to compare | recycled/expanded from Ch. 3 |
| 평가하다 | action verb | to evaluate | 자료를 평가하다 |
| 최신 | noun/modifier | most recent; up to date | 최신 자료, 최신 통계 |
| 오래되다 | descriptive verb | to be old/dated | 오래된 자료 |
| 통계 | noun | statistics | recycled/expanded from Ch. 3 |
| 조사하다 | action verb | to investigate; survey | 조사에 따르면 |
Approximately 48 productive items are introduced or newly activated in this chapter, within the 45–75 range for Volume IV. Items marked "recycled/expanded" build directly on vocabulary already made productive in earlier chapters.
Receptive / Specialized Vocabulary
The following items may appear receptively, glossed in context, but are not assessed productively in this chapter: 상호 검토(peer review), 학술지, 데이터베이스, 메타 분석. These belong to a larger specialized academic-research register that Chapter 12 and later chapters will develop further.
Pronunciation Focus
Many of this chapter's new items are Sino-Korean compounds ending in -성 (e.g., 신뢰성) or built from a noun plus a light verb such as 하다 or 되다 (e.g., 검증하다/검증되다). Practice keeping the batchim of the noun element clearly released before the following syllable, so that 신뢰성 and 신뢰하다 remain clearly distinct in connected speech.
Pay attention to the tensification that occurs across the syllable boundary in 근거가 부족하다 and similar phrases, where a following lax consonant tenses after certain final sounds. This is a recycled sound-change pattern from earlier chapters, now applied to new academic vocabulary.
Grammar and Sentence Patterns
This chapter introduces two major new productive systems: (1) formal citation and attribution patterns that distinguish a source's exact words from the writer's paraphrase, and (2) paraphrase-marking patterns that signal a restatement in the writer's own words. Both build on the source-attribution and hedging patterns already made productive in Chapters 6 and 8.
1. New — Citation and Attribution
Recall from Chapter 6 that N에 따르면 attributes information to a source. This chapter adds two further distinctions: marking an exact quotation with "..."라고 하다, and marking a paraphrase with an indirect quotation ending such as -다고 하다 or -라는 것이다 without quotation marks.
- 한 전문가는 "이 문제는 단기간에 해결되기 어렵다"라고 말했다.One expert said, "This problem is difficult to solve in the short term.""..."라고 말하다 = direct quotation, exact words
- 그 전문가는 이 문제가 단기간에 해결되기 어렵다고 말했다.That expert said that this problem is difficult to solve in the short term.-다고 말하다 (no quotation marks) = paraphrase/indirect report of the same claim
- 이 조사에 따르면 응답자의 절반 이상이 관련 정보를 신뢰하지 않는 것으로 나타났다.According to this survey, it was found that more than half of respondents do not trust the related information.N에 따르면 + ~것으로 나타나다 = citation of a survey finding
Use 출처를 밝히다 whenever a written task requires learners to state where a claim came from, and reserve direct quotation marks for cases where the exact wording matters.
2. New — Paraphrase Markers
다시 말해, 바꾸어 말하면, 즉, and 요컨대 all introduce a restatement, but they are not interchangeable. 다시 말해 and 바꾸어 말하면 restate the same idea in different words; 즉 restates or clarifies more concisely; 요컨대 sums up a longer point.
- 이 자료는 최신 통계를 포함하지 않는다. 다시 말해, 지금 상황을 정확히 반영하지 못할 수 있다.This material does not include recent statistics. In other words, it may not accurately reflect the current situation.다시 말해 = restating the implication in different words
- 이 기사는 출처를 밝히지 않았다. 즉, 신뢰성을 판단하기 어렵다.This article did not state its source. That is, it is difficult to judge its reliability.즉 = concise clarifying restatement
- 요컨대, 이 자료는 근거가 부족하므로 주장을 뒷받침하는 데 적절하지 않다.In short, this material lacks sufficient grounds, so it is not appropriate for supporting the claim.요컨대 = summing up a longer evaluation
A true paraphrase restates the source's meaning in genuinely different sentence structure and vocabulary, not merely by replacing one or two words. Learners should practice changing sentence structure, not only vocabulary, when paraphrasing.
3. Review — Reliability Description
Combine this chapter's reliability vocabulary with the hedging patterns from Chapter 8 to describe how confident a writer can be in a source.
- 이 통계는 정부 기관에서 발표한 것으로, 출처가 분명하고 신뢰할 만하다.This statistic was released by a government institution, so its source is clear and it is trustworthy.출처가 분명하다 + 신뢰할 만하다 = positive reliability evaluation
- 이 블로그 글은 출처가 불분명하고 근거가 부족한 것으로 보인다.This blog post appears to have an unclear source and insufficient grounds.것으로 보이다 (Ch. 8) + 출처가 불분명하다/근거가 부족하다 = hedged negative evaluation
[출처 표시: N에 따르면/저자에 따르면] + [주장 인용 또는 재진술] + [다시 말해/즉 + 재진술] + [신뢰성 평가]
출처 표시 = naming the source; 주장 인용 또는 재진술 = quoting or paraphrasing the claim; 재진술 = restating for clarity; 신뢰성 평가 = evaluating how trustworthy the source is
한 지역 연구소의 조사에 따르면 최근 소음 민원이 증가한 것으로 나타났다. 다시 말해, 야간 공사에 대한 주민들의 불만이 실제로 늘고 있다는 것이다. 이 연구소는 공신력 있는 기관으로 알려져 있어 이 자료는 신뢰할 만하다고 볼 수 있다.
According to a survey by a local research institute, recent noise complaints have reportedly increased. In other words, residents' dissatisfaction with nighttime construction is in fact growing. Since this institute is known as a credible institution, this material can be considered trustworthy.
Practice — Combining Citation, Paraphrase, and Reliability
- Write one sentence attributing a claim to a named source, using N에 따르면 or 저자에 따르면.
- Write one sentence that paraphrases that claim, using 다시 말해 or 즉, changing the sentence structure rather than only the vocabulary.
- Write one sentence evaluating the source's reliability, using one item from this chapter's reliability vocabulary.
Model Dialogue
박 교수님의 연구 방법론 상담 시간, 마이클이 자료의 신뢰성에 대해 질문하는 장면 (교육용 예시)
Guided Practice
- Read the model dialogue again and underline every phrase used to question or confirm a source's reliability.
- Choose two short claims (invented or from a familiar topic) and write one sentence attributing each to a named source.
- Paraphrase one of your two claims using 다시 말해, changing at least the sentence structure, not only individual words.
- Write one sentence evaluating the reliability of each of your two sources, using at least one different reliability expression for each.
- Exchange with a partner and identify each other's citation, paraphrase marker, and reliability evaluation.
Listening Practice
Ask your instructor, a language partner, or a text-to-speech tool to read the following short academic consultation aloud at a measured, formal pace, using two voices if possible. Listen twice without reading, then complete the tasks below.
수아가 박 교수님과 자료의 신뢰성에 대해 상담하는 장면 (교육용 예시)
듣기 과제 — Listening task: Listen and answer in English.
| 질문 | 답 |
|---|---|
| What problem does 수아 bring to the consultation? | ______ |
| What two factors does 박 교수님 say to compare first? | ______ |
| Which source should 수아 prioritize, and why? | ______ |
| What condition does 박 교수님 attach to using the older source? | ______ |
Reading Practice
Read the following short passage together with two secondary notes about its sources, then answer the questions that follow. These are general-purpose instructional texts, not authentic published sources or professional research guidance.
자료 A — 지역 연구소 조사 결과 요약 (교육용 예시)
한 지역 연구소의 최신 조사에 따르면 응답자의 약 60퍼센트가 야간 공사 소음에 대해 우려를 표한 것으로 나타났다. 이 연구소는 매년 관련 조사를 실시해 온 공신력 있는 기관으로 알려져 있으며, 조사 방법과 출처가 보고서에 명확히 밝혀져 있다.
자료 B — 익명 게시판 글 (교육용 예시)
한 온라인 게시판에는 "주민 대부분이 공사를 반대한다"는 글이 올라와 있다. 그러나 이 글은 저자와 조사 방법을 밝히지 않았으며, 구체적인 근거도 제시하지 않는다.
내용 이해 — Comprehension questions:
- Identify the sentence in 자료 A that cites a specific finding, and state what percentage and topic it reports.
- What two features make 자료 A's source relatively reliable, according to the passage?
- Identify the direct quotation in 자료 B, and explain in English why it is presented in quotation marks.
- What two features make 자료 B's source relatively unreliable?
- Paraphrase the main claim of 자료 A in your own Korean sentence, using 다시 말해 or 즉.
- If you had to choose one of these two sources to support a claim in a short paper, which would you choose, and how would you justify that choice using this chapter's reliability vocabulary?
Writing Workshop
Write a short source note (6–10 sentences) about one of the two sources above, or about a source connected to your own guided-practice topic. Your note must include citation, paraphrase, and a reliability evaluation.
[재진술: 다시 말해/즉 + 자신의 말로 바꾼 문장]
[신뢰성 평가: 출처가 분명하다/불분명하다, 근거가 있다/부족하다 등]
[마무리 문장: 이 자료를 어떻게 사용할 것인지]
[Paraphrase: in other words/that is + a restatement in your own words]
[Reliability evaluation: source is clear/unclear, grounds are sufficient/insufficient, etc.]
[Closing sentence: how you will use this source]
- 출처 표시. Attribute the main claim to its source, naming the source clearly.
- 재진술. Paraphrase the claim in your own words, changing sentence structure as well as vocabulary, and mark the paraphrase with 다시 말해, 즉, or 바꾸어 말하면.
- 신뢰성 평가. State whether the source is reliable, using at least one item of this chapter's reliability vocabulary and explaining why.
- 마무리. Close with one sentence stating how you intend to use (or not use) this source in your own work.
체크리스트 — Checklist:
- The claim is clearly attributed to a named source, not presented as the writer's own unsupported statement.
- The paraphrase restates the source in genuinely different sentence structure, not only different vocabulary.
- A paraphrase marker (다시 말해, 즉, or 바꾸어 말하면) is used correctly.
- The reliability evaluation uses at least one item of this chapter's vocabulary and gives a reason.
- Any direct quotation is marked with quotation marks and kept short; everything else is paraphrased.
- Formal register is maintained throughout, without casual endings.
- Spacing, particles, and Hangeul spelling are accurate, with no romanization.
Speaking Practice
통제 연습 — Controlled practice: 핵심 문장 말하기
Practice saying your citation sentence, your paraphrase sentence, and your reliability-evaluation sentence aloud, three times each, keeping even pacing across all three.
의사소통 과제 — Communicative task: 자료 상담하기
With a partner, role-play the model dialogue's situation using your own chosen source: one partner plays a student presenting a source, the other plays 박 교수님 questioning its reliability, using at least two reliability expressions from this chapter.
혼자 하는 연습 — Solo alternative
Record yourself presenting your written source note aloud, then record yourself asking and answering two follow-up questions about the source's reliability, playing both the student and the professor roles.
Culture and Communication
South Korean universities, like universities in many countries, expect students to distinguish clearly between a source's exact words and their own paraphrase, and to avoid 표절 (plagiarism) by properly attributing both quotations and paraphrased ideas. The specific citation formats used (footnotes, in-text citation, reference lists) vary by institution and discipline, much as they do elsewhere.
Learners researching Korean-language topics will often need to judge the 공신력 of government agencies, research institutes, established news organizations, and academic publications relative to informal online sources — a skill relevant across languages and not unique to Korean-language research.
This chapter teaches the Korean language needed to cite, paraphrase, and evaluate sources at a general level. It does not replace formal instruction in research methodology, discipline-specific citation styles, or academic-integrity policy, and learners working on an actual academic project should consult their institution's official guidelines.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Error: Writing 전문가는 "이 문제는 단기간에 해결되기 어렵다고 말했다" — placing quotation marks around an indirect (paraphrased) report.
Correction: Use quotation marks only for the source's exact words: 전문가는 "이 문제는 단기간에 해결되기 어렵다"라고 말했다, or drop the quotation marks entirely for an indirect report: 전문가는 이 문제가 단기간에 해결되기 어렵다고 말했다.
Error: Treating a paraphrase as complete after replacing only one or two words in the original sentence, leaving the same structure and most of the same vocabulary.
Correction: Restate the idea with a different sentence structure and largely different vocabulary, then check that the meaning still matches the original before adding a paraphrase marker such as 다시 말해.
Error: Citing 자료 B's unattributed claim as if it were as reliable as 자료 A's cited survey, simply because both appear in writing.
Correction: Evaluate each source's reliability explicitly before using it, and state clearly when a source's grounds are insufficient: 이 글은 근거가 부족하여 주장을 뒷받침하는 자료로 적절하지 않다.
Chapter Review
Section A — 어휘 복습 (Vocabulary Review)
1. Sort the following items into "citation," "paraphrase," and "reliability" groups: 인용하다, 다시 말해, 신뢰할 만하다, 출처를 밝히다, 즉, 근거가 부족하다.
Section B — 문법 복습 (Grammar Review)
1. Write one sentence citing a source using N에 따르면.
2. Write one sentence paraphrasing that claim, using a paraphrase marker and a different sentence structure.
3. Write one sentence evaluating the source's reliability.
Section C — 독해 이해 (Reading Comprehension)
1. Summarize 자료 A and 자료 B in four or five English sentences, distinguishing what is cited, what is paraphrased, and how reliable each source is.
Section D — 쓰기 (Writing)
1. Complete the source note, following the steps and checklist in the Writing Workshop above.
Section E — 말하기 (Speaking)
1. Role-play the source consultation with a partner, as described in the Speaking Practice above.
누적 복습 — Cumulative review
This chapter recycles source-attribution language from Chapter 6, hedged-claim language from Chapter 8, and formal register control from throughout Unit II, while introducing citation/attribution and paraphrase-marking as new productive systems.
Practical Performance Task
수행 과제 — Chapter 11 Performance Task
자료 노트 작성 및 발표 — Preparing and Presenting a Source Note
You will read a short passage with two secondary sources, listen to a short academic consultation, write a complete source note, and present it aloud while responding to at least one follow-up question about your source's reliability.
- Reading: Read 자료 A and 자료 B and answer the comprehension questions.
- Listening: Listen to the academic consultation and answer the listening task questions.
- Writing: Write a complete source note following the Writing Workshop model and checklist.
- Speaking: Present the source note aloud and respond to at least one follow-up question in formal register.
| Criterion | What is evaluated |
|---|---|
| Reading and listening comprehension | Citation, paraphrase, and reliability content are correctly identified in both source materials |
| Citation and attribution (new) | Claims are correctly attributed to a named source, with direct quotation reserved for exact wording |
| Paraphrase (new) | At least one paraphrase genuinely restates sentence structure and vocabulary, marked with an appropriate discourse marker |
| Reliability evaluation | At least one reliability judgment is made using this chapter's vocabulary, with a stated reason |
| Register consistency | Formal register is maintained throughout writing and speaking |
| Cumulative integration | Chapter 6 and Chapter 8 attribution/hedging language is correctly recycled alongside the new systems |
| Hangeul and spacing accuracy | Accurate spelling and level-appropriate spacing throughout, no romanization |
| Scope discipline | No structures used productively beyond Volume IV, Chapters 1–11 |
Answer Key
Reading comprehension
- The citing sentence is 한 지역 연구소의 최신 조사에 따르면..., reporting that about 60 percent of respondents expressed concern about nighttime construction noise.
- 자료 A is relatively reliable because the institute conducts this research annually and is described as credible, and because the report clearly states its method and source.
- The direct quotation is "주민 대부분이 공사를 반대한다"; it is quoted because it reproduces someone's exact posted words rather than the writer's own paraphrase.
- 자료 B is relatively unreliable because the author and research method are not stated, and no concrete evidence is given.
- Sample paraphrase: 즉, 조사에 참여한 사람들 중 절반이 넘는 수가 야간 공사 소음을 부정적으로 느끼고 있다는 것이다.
- Sample justification: 자료 A should be chosen, since it is 출처가 분명하고 신뢰할 만하다, while 자료 B is 근거가 부족하다.
Listening comprehension
- 수아 has two sources presenting different figures and does not know which to cite.
- 박 교수님 says to compare the time of each survey and the credibility of each source's institution.
- 수아 should prioritize the more recent (last year's) statistics.
- She may still mention the older source for comparison, but must clearly state the difference to her reader.
Chapter Review — Section B
1. Sample response: 한 조사에 따르면 최근 야간 공사 민원이 증가하고 있다.
2. Sample response: 다시 말해, 야간 공사에 대한 주민들의 불만이 실제로 늘어나고 있다는 것이다.
3. Sample response: 이 조사는 공신력 있는 기관에서 실시한 것으로, 신뢰할 만하다.
Section D — Sample response
Check that: the claim is attributed to a named source, the paraphrase changes sentence structure (not only vocabulary) and uses a correct paraphrase marker, the reliability evaluation uses at least one item of this chapter's vocabulary with a stated reason, and formal register is consistent throughout.
Looking Ahead
지금 할 수 있는 것 — What you can do now
You can attribute a claim to a named source, distinguish a direct quotation from a paraphrase, restate a source's claim in genuinely different words using an appropriate discourse marker, and evaluate a source's reliability using formal academic vocabulary — combining these skills into a short written and spoken source note.