Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact 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. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic 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 native speakers. 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 lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.