Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or 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. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.


DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined 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 of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs 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. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.