Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. 프라그마틱 정품 were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to 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 often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely 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 CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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 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 also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.