Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may result in 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 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

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 designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

https://christophersen-terp.hubstack.net/pragmatic-tools-to-improve-your-daily-lifethe-one-pragmatic-trick-that-everyone-should-know (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate 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 major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the 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 follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. 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, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.



The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed 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, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.