Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and 프라그마틱 lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 정품 확인법 (hoffman-koenig-2.technetbloggers.De) which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered 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 second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.