Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, https://click4r.com/posts/g/17851882/8-tips-to-improve-your-pragmatic-slots-site-game should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate 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 benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. https://output.jsbin.com/huresoqama/ 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 transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required 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 required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).



These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.