Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 사이트 cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety 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 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using 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 DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model 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 understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
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 third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.