Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 슬롯 video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 무료게임 무료 (Click on socialimarketing.com) such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 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 strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics 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 what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.