Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs’ awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
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 also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students’ ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners’ pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
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, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. 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. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean’s pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs’ preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 정품인증 to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 불법 instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers’ pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 라이브 카지노 LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to 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 distinct tendency to include their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were 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 attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
