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. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. Related Site can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations 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, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. 프라그마틱 정품확인 were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, 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 in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.