Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite 프라그마틱 게임 , the DCT is a useful instrument to study 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. 프라그마틱 환수율 can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that 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 data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

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

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.


Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved 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 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.