Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯무료 (official site) more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
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 preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (Telegra.Ph) multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
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 to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be 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 allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.