Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as 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 to reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 무료체험; Enrollbookmarks said in a blog post, 프라그마틱 환수율 refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The findings 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 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 추천 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 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 conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They described, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.