Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 추천 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Klein-crosby.hubstack.net) non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had 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 discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 체험 multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create 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 a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.