Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully 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 alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. 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 of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. sneak a peek at this site are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from 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 in their use of 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. you could check here were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.