Earticle

This study was conducted by an attempt to assist L2 teachers and learners interested in the limited use of L1 in the process of clarifying evidences and identifying their own beliefs about positive effect on L1 use, both in terms of methodological issues and practical implications for conversational interactions in L2. Its purpose is not to develop a particular theory or methodology; rather, it seeks to investigate the ways in which a mechanism of L1 use is related to communicative processes and depicts technique of L1 use by learners in L2 learning context. L1 use should, therefore, not be considered solely as one specific learning technique, but rather as a learning tool that is flexible and temporary as effective pedagogical activity towards L2 learning. To achieve this goal, this study assumes L1 use in sequential interaction as a fundamentally constitutive dimension in which learning can take place. L1 plays a central role in the L2 learning study in order to understand how learning is constructed by the use of interactional resources, such as states by Mondada and Doehler (2004), which is “an interlocking set of reasoning practices, institutional structures, and language” (p. 503). The analysis on how learners use their L1 methodologically and systematically provides important insights into a description of how learners in sequential interaction orient the use of their L1 and leads to CA analytic approach. The purpose of this study is not to argue for or against the studies on L1 use but to contextualize the study by summarizing and reviewing the contributions to L1 use by key researchers and theorists. Thus, the study aims to be briefly reviewed to encapsulate the range of disputes pertinent to each notion with regard to different positions in L1 use without preempting the findings.

This article aims to provide an understanding of the dynamics of pension politics in South Korea with special attention to the role of bureaucrats. In order to explain both reforms, this research will closely examine how the expertise and the legitimacy of civil servants together with the institutional positioning of bureaucrats have affected their power and role in the policy-making process. This article will argue that bureaucrats, particularly the welfare bureaucracy, attained their major reform goals by associating as well as competing with other political actors in two major reforms.