Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study 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 plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made 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 utilized less 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, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing 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 often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

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

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. https://articlescad.com/20-great-tweets-from-all-time-pragmatic-slots-free-trial-133523.html will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.