Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found 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 used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 슬롯 their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using 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 experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based 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 showed that CLKs were aware of 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 completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 불법 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 메타 [try these guys out] further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.