Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, 프라그마틱 무료게임 정품 사이트 (Https://Imoodle.Win/Wiki/How_Do_You_Know_If_Youre_Are_Ready_For_Pragmatic) including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 사이트, Www.google.pt, L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 게임 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.