Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic 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 is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. simply click the next website referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could 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 various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular 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 research 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 define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.