Emmett MacGillivray

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and 프라그마틱 정품확인 based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for 프라그마틱 체험 measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. 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 the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 이미지 환수율 (learn more about Google) and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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 deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained 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 about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.