Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as 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 developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the 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 led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so 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 such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and 프라그마틱 무료체험 beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and 프라그마틱 정품인증 testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research 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 objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached 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 required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.