Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for 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 can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among 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 lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as 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 a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 프라그마틱 정품 were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.