Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 추천 프라그마틱 정품 확인법확인 (Http://Bbs.01Bim.Com) which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.