Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help 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 of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, 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 indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. www.pragmatickr.com were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as 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 while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.