Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. 프라그마틱 정품인증 had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and 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 were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction 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 choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.