Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 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 tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험, Images.Google.Bg, then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 프라그마틱 정품확인, https://xs.xylvip.com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1702813, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 순위 정품 확인법 (visit the up coming website) and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 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 the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.