Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had 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 coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품확인 프라그마틱 무료스핀; https://able2know.org/user/flareuse83, Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help 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 strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong 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 attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.