Why Pragmatic Is So Helpful In COVID-19? Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)


This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. 프라그마틱 무료 were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.