Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, 라이브 카지노 can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
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 related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.