Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. 프라그마틱 정품 were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors 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 facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "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-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.