Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent 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 traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. 프라그마틱 무료 revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important 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 instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). 프라그마틱 플레이 of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.