Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.