Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, pragmatickr.com which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.