Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including 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 consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
무료 프라그마틱 of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using 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 experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
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 numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance 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, even though she believed native Koreans would.