Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
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 use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive 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 research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination 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 third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.