Download KLA_template

Title of the Article

 Abstract

This article investigates the errors in honorific usage made by intermediate-level Korean learners whose first language is Turkish. Based on a corpus of written tasks collected over one semester, the study categorizes errors according to grammatical type and contextual appropriateness. Results indicate that a significant portion of errors stem from direct transfer from the learners’ L1. The findings have pedagogical implications for explicit instruction in pragmatically appropriate honorific usage.

Keywords: Korean honorifics, L1 transfer, pragmatics, learner error, Korean language education

1. Introduction

Honorific expressions in Korean play a crucial role in maintaining social harmony and expressing politeness. For learners whose first language lacks such a system, acquiring appropriate honorific usage is particularly challenging. This study investigates how Turkish learners of Korean use honorifics in their written production and explores the nature and frequency of their errors.

2. Literature Review

Previous studies have examined honorifics in Korean from both grammatical and pragmatic perspectives (Sohn, 1999; Byon, 2004). Research on learner error has shown that L1 influence often leads to misuse of honorific markers (Kim, 2010; Yang, 2013). However, few studies focus specifically on Turkish learners.

3. Methodology

Data were collected from 20 Turkish learners enrolled in an intermediate Korean course. Learners completed three written assignments involving honorific use across various scenarios. Errors were coded and categorized using an adapted version of Brown and Levinson’s politeness framework.

4. Results

Among the 150 errors identified, 60% were pragmatic errors (e.g., overuse or underuse of honorifics in informal contexts), and 40% were morphological errors (e.g., incorrect use of -시-‘si’ or honorific particles).

<Figure 1>

Figure 1: Distribution of honorific errors by type.

5. Discussion

The predominance of pragmatic errors suggests a need for more context-based honorific instruction. While morphological forms may be learned through repetition, pragmatically appropriate usage requires greater cultural awareness. These findings align with previous research (Yang, 2013) and extend it to a less-studied learner population.

6. Conclusion

This study highlights the specific challenges faced by Turkish learners in acquiring Korean honorifics. Instructional strategies should address not only form but also sociolinguistic context. Future research could explore similar issues in spoken data.

References

Benn, G. (1961). Primal Vision. Ed. E. B. Ashton; trans. M. Hamburger. London: Bodley Head.

Bischoff, G., S. Maertens, & Grimme, W. (2011). Airline pricing strategies versus consumer

rights. Transportation Journal, 14 (3), 232–50.

Geary, S., & Vitasek, K. (2008). Performance-Based Logistics: A Contractor’s Guide to Life

Cycle Product Support Management. Bellevue, WA: Supply Chain Visions.

양소영. (2013). 터키인 한국어 학습자의 존대법 오류 분석 – 대조분석적 관점에서.

한국어교육, 24(2), 205-231. [An analysis of the Turkish learners’ errors of honorific expressions in Korean writing. Journal of Korean Language Education, 24(2), 205-231.]

<Appendix 1>

Glossed Example:

영희가 쿠키를 만들어요

Yenghui-NOM cookie-ACC make-SE

‘Yenghui makes cookies.’