Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating 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 can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, 프라그마틱 순위 the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general 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 benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from 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) at their second or third year of university, and 프라그마틱 추천 were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.