Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. simply click the next web page has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop 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 deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.