Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 공식홈페이지 (elearnportal.Science) including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 사이트 (www.Hulkshare.com) third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.