Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in 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. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for 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 developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.