Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
sneak a peek at this website (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover 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 risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, 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 explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.