Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually 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 are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses 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 showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. 프라그마틱 정품 of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, 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 native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to 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 consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.