External examination: register and audience in a transactional writing task
The external examination includes a writing task: 'Write a letter to the principal of your school proposing a change to the canteen menu.' Students must write in Korean, 250–300 words, using appropriate register. One student writes a lively, well-organised letter but uses 반말 throughout (e.g. 메뉴를 바꿔 주세요, 그리고 채소도 더 많이 넣어), addresses the principal as 너, and includes a joke about the canteen food being 'almost inedible.' The content is relevant and the structure is clear. The marker must decide how register and audience awareness affect the score.
1. Explain how the register choices interact with the 'audience and purpose' criterion.
Read the worked answer
Register is not decoration here; it is audience awareness. Writing to a principal requires formal polite Korean: -습니다/ㅂ니다 or 해요체 at minimum, with honorific -시- where the principal is the actor, and an appropriate address form (교장 선생님께). Using 반말 and 너 signals a misjudged relationship, which directly undermines the purpose (persuading an authority figure).
The joke about 'almost inedible' food compounds this: humour can build rapport, but mocking the institution one is petitioning risks alienating the reader. So the letter demonstrates clear content and structure but weak control of the criterion that governs transactional writing. This should cap the score in that criterion even if organisation is strong.
2. A colleague argues 'the content is good, so register should only cost one or two marks.' Evaluate this.
Read the worked answer
The argument treats register as a surface polish, which misreads the task. In a transactional letter, the relationship with the reader is part of the content's effectiveness: a proposal that offends or confuses its recipient fails its purpose regardless of good ideas.
A balanced position: register errors should not erase credit for relevant content and organisation, but they should substantially limit the audience/purpose criterion, because the descriptor asks for language 'appropriate to audience and context.' Costing only one or two marks would understate the failure. The defensible outcome gives solid credit for content and structure while placing audience awareness in a low band.
3. What feedback would most help this student improve on a similar task?
Read the worked answer
Feedback should be concrete and transferable:
- Name the register system: formal polite endings (-습니다/ㅂ니다), honorific -시-, and correct address forms (께, 교장 선생님).
- Show the contrast: rewrite two sentences from the student's letter in formal register so the difference is visible.
- Address humour: explain that light humour can work if it targets the situation gently rather than criticising the reader's institution.
- Link to purpose: remind the student that the goal is to persuade an authority figure, so every choice should be tested against 'how will the principal read this?'
This targets the reasoning behind the errors, not just the errors themselves.