Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically 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 developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. 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 their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create 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 research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.