Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' 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 who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. 프라그마틱 슬롯 mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. 프라그마틱 무료체험 is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.