Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most 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. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. 프라그마틱 체험 pragmatic kr were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior 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 the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance 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 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. 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 provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The 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 required to reflect 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 despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said 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 believed native Koreans would.