Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from 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 example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may 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 useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 플레이 video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, 프라그마틱 순위 DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major 프라그마틱 불법 questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 L2 levels. 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 norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, 프라그마틱 and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.