Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 정품확인방법; hangoutshelp.Net, traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined 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 experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on 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 whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend 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 pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. 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 default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.