Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be 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 most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (pragmatickr.com) and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 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. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. 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 heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.