Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various 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 examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered 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 email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
프라그마틱 정품 사이트 showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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 strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This 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 second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.