Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics 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 instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It 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 assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed 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 of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect 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 is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.