This paper aims to investigate Korean EFL learners’ pragmatic performance in request speech acts in comparison with native speakers of English. Written discourse completion tasks (WDCT) are used to examine how native and non-native speakers request in terms of request strategies, internal modifications, and external modifications. The results show that first, Korean learners had a higher frequency of inappropriate strategies than native speakers. Second, they lacked the quantity and variety of internal modifications both lexically and syntactically. However, regarding external modifications, their use of supportive moves was similar to that of natives in frequency and order. In addition, this study identified newly emergent supportive moves that are Korean-specific and detrimental to communication goals. The findings shed light on pragmatic instruction in the Korean EFL situation by providing research-informed data. Several pedagogical implications are suggested for application in teaching.

This study examines the relatively unexplored genre of argumentation for Korean EFL speakers. The data consisted of audio-recordings of a naturally occurring argumentative discussion between two non-native and two native university students. The argumentation was first analyzed by identifying the claims, counter-claims and supports that were made during the discussion. To observe the pragmatic aspects of the argumentative discussion, van Eemeren, Houtlosser, and Henkeman’s 2007 categorization of speech acts amongst the four stages of confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding for a critical discussion was examined for the two groups. In addition to the contextual and pragmatic factors, the participants’ perceptions on this genre and their awareness of their performance in stating claims and supports were examined through interviews and questionnaires. The results of the study revealed that there were particular pragmatic aspects which characterized the claims and supports of the participants that won the argument as well as features that differentiated the native and non-native speakers when engaged in argumentation. Suggestions for more instruction for the genre of argumentation in terms of the structure and pragmatic aspects of the content are given.