Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯버프 (Https://Playwpt.Onelink.Me) as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.