Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. 프라그마틱 슬롯 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built 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 showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.