Cantrell User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. ????? ?? can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

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

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.


First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, 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 risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.

Member since: Saturday, September 14, 2024

http://hikvisiondb.webcam/index.php?title=smalldamsgaard3892