Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. 프라그마틱 게임 discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing 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 is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native 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 scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity 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 learners in the classroom and beyond. This 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 study a specific subject. 프라그마틱 환수율 uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.