Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to 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 is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 추천 (to pragmatickr97531.shoutmyblog.com) their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of 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 in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step 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 aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 무료게임 (Bookmarksoflife.com) instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with 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.