Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for 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 to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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 examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 사이트 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 정품확인 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer 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 reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 플레이 a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.