Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed 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 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 프라그마틱 정품인증 (via Bookmark Vip) transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.