Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the 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. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using 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 DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical 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 words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required 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 even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.