Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.



In https://meatblade84.bravejournal.net/15-things-youve-never-known-about-pragmatic-recommendations of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text 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 reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.