Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료체험, 79Bo.Com, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas 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 in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료스핀 (https://images.google.com.hk/url?q=https://www.metooo.co.uk/u/66ec0263f2059b59ef3d847e) LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, 슬롯 thereby ignoring accurate 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 responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 추천 comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.