Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as 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 designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 무료게임 and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 - ckxken.synology.me, teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료게임 z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required 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 despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words 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 achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.