Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
click through the up coming post employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
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, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help 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 an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.