Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. 프라그마틱 found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. 라이브 카지노 showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 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 selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". 프라그마틱 was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.