Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs’ awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause 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 useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners’ speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students’ refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren’t always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners’ choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants’ pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs’ preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 환수율; pragmatickr.com, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers’ pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea’s 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or “garbage,” to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor’s well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.