Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency 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 achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.