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. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing 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 showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example 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 expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. 슬롯 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
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 second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.