Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines 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 is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 , the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications 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 (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate 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 answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.