Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. simply click the next website has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". 프라그마틱 플레이 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of 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 cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.