Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship 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 ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were 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 reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of 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 to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.