Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 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 choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.