2013, Vol.21, No.2

The Sociolinguistic Journal of Korea 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.57

pISSN : 1226-4822
https://journal.kci.go.kr/socioling

While there have been extensive sociolinguistic research on the rhoticity of native and ESL varieties of English, no English of the expanding circle has been investigated as to its rhoticity. This study, using the variationist framework, investigates Korean English speakers’ pronunciation of post-vocalic /r/ as possibly the first research on the rhoticity of an EFL variety. The variety of Korean English analyzed in this study was closer to rhotic than nonrhotic, supporting the claim by many researchers (e.g., Choe 1996) that Korean English is linguistically closer to American English than British English. Though both linguistic and non-linguistic constraints are observed to exert influence on the rhoticity of the Korean variety of English, the latter proved to be more dominant. The effects of linguistic constraints were relatively weak and somewhat different from those as found in research on native varieties of English (e.g., Nagy & Irwin 2010, Piercy 2012). Nonlinguistic factors such as gender, proficiency level, speech style, and language/dialect contact significantly influenced the informants’ production of post-vocalic /r/. (186)

If politeness principles aim at maintaining a harmonious relationship among interlocutors, sarcasm targets the opposite end; it is designed to throw sarcastic accusation. Quite often, sarcasm is originated from Speaker. On occasions Hearer infers sarcasm out of Speaker's well-wishing utterances. In other times, Speaker's sarcasm is so blurry that Hearer cannot judge whether Speaker's utterance is sarcastic or not. This writer attempts to interpret linguistic sarcasm by illustrating different cases in which sarcasm is generated, transferred and interpreted. The first kind is Speaker-originated sarcasm. Speaker generates sarcasm and delivers it. Hearer interprets Speaker's sarcastic message as sarcasm. The second case refers to Hearer-originated sarcasm. Because of his or her own person hood or viewpoints of the world, Hearer infers sarcasm out of Speaker's innocuous utterances. The final case is the exploitation of ambiguity. Taking advantage of the linguistic ambiguity between sarcastic irony and banter, Speaker throws a punch of acerbic sarcasm. (165)

The main purpose of this paper is to identify typical discourse patterns of EFL classes and to enhance the sensitivity of the complex socio-cultural aspects involved in discourse patterns. This study assumed that language learning is a process of competent participation in socio-cultural language practices. The data were collected from four groups of two courses (General English and Screen English) to compare the ways teachers and students perform discourse patterns. The collected data were analyzed focusing on multi-dimensional approaches in interaction formulas: IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback), ICs (Instructional Conversations), MP (Modeling - Practicing), CEQR (Comment - Elaborative Questioning -Response), CCF (Conversation-Corrective Feedback), CMIR (Contingency Management Instruction-Response), OEQA (Open Ended Questioning -Answering), QEC (Question-Explaining Conversation) ACNB (Any Cases Not Belonging). Data analysis from various sources (scripts of video-recordings, frequency counts, and interviews) indicated that to some extent the discourse patterns were different due to the course type and its objectives. The result indicated that the teachers and students changed their discourse patterns depending on the course types. Such choice of discourse patterns of contingent interaction is related to various topics to be dealt with in the particular course. (200)