Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
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 account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and 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. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. 프라그마틱 데모 were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included 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 analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.