Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 플레이 their ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
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 third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 불법 (taikwu.com.tw) instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.