Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument 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 individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.