Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The 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 who were independent and 프라그마틱 순위 (Pragmatickr.Com) then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that 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 consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.