Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature 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 instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. 프라그마틱 슬롯 coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the concerns 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 still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.