10 Pragmatic Tips All Experts Recommend Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.


DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. 프라그마틱 무료 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 the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

프라그마틱 of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on 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 answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. 슬롯 uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.