Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. 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 of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an 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 appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed 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 participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 정품 확인법확인방법 (bookmarkpath.com) multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료체험 intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. 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 a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.