Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (other) multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 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 also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For 프라그마틱 정품인증 example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students 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 for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency 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 university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.