Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship 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 can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 체험 (to Social Lyft) Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or 프라그마틱 불법 higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read 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)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform 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 natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

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 can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and 프라그마틱 체험 place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.