Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, simply click the next website is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to 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 decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either 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 though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built 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 the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.