Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those 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 investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought 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. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. 프라그마틱 무료스핀 were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.