Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:



Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

https://anotepad.com/notes/9y2478b3 employed a DCT to test 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 found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing 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 favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. http://orrthestrup57.jigsy.com/entries/general/Solutions-To-The-Problems-Of-Pragmatic-Free-Trial-Slot-Buff were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex 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 what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.