Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. 프라그마틱 무료게임 can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was 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 were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as 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 basis in the space of two days of participants having completed 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 read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to 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 responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique 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 kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.