Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 무료 revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as 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 think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results 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 different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with 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 must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.