Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool 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 feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
프라그마틱 순위 are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range 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 asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism 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 to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. 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 default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on 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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a 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 answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.