Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way 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 with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach 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 used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. just click the following internet site 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect 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 responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific 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 allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.