Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (Scrapbookmarket.com) like the content and 무료 프라그마틱 the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 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 DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (icelisting.com) MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and 무료 프라그마틱 MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so 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 personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add 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 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 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.