Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized 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' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted 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 their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, 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 risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
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 identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Moreover, 프라그마틱 사이트 of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.