Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트; Nimmansocial.Com, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean 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 preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품확인 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on 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 co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.