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. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on 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 requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often 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 knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 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 are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. try this website included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic 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 aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were 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 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.