Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and 프라그마틱 플레이 content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 순위 z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 (www.google.Pn) 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for 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 different cultural contexts. This will allow 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 create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.