Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including 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 speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach 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 employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 체험 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯체험 (her response) then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. 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 investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.