Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core 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 numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 프라그마틱 체험 [Going Listed here] Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 게임 z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 무료 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-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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 on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. 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 lives. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.