What Is The Reason Pragmatic Is The Best Choice For You? Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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 are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. 프라그마틱 정품확인 revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.


The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.