Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. 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 suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from 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 examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Highly recommended Internet site coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. 프라그마틱 정품확인 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals 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 helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and 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. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.