Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. talking to for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. 프라그마틱 무료스핀 warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. you could check here have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. 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 default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.