Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 순위 instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
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 creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made 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 hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in 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 pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as 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 tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.