Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as 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 an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
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 utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making 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 upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical 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 often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing 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 the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators 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 strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. 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 the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.