Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and 슬롯 can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For 프라그마틱 이미지 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer 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. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. 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 benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 and classroom interactions of L2 students. 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 in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.