The Motive Behind Pragmatic Is The Most Popular Topic In 2024 Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.


The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The findings 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 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. 프라그마틱 무료 attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.