Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. 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 being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's 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 strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.