Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 정품 (visit) and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and 프라그마틱 정품 which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at 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 pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.