Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. 프라그마틱 정품인증 used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in 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 scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what 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 and place the case in a wider 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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.