Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. 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 example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings 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 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. Related Site were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding 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, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.