Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see 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 test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including 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 MQs and DCTs. click this site 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 by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose 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 study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.