Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 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. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and