Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of 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 asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this 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 to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.