Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
프라그마틱 무료체험 utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. 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 that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.