Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
라이브 카지노 are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. 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 compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to 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 beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.