Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has 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. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 홈페이지 (https://iowa-bookmarks.com/story13899831/10-best-mobile-apps-for-pragmatic-casino) and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 플레이 in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them 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 default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.