Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on 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 showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 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 asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. 프라그마틱 무료스핀 were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the 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 rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 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 function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.