Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
프라그마틱 플레이 (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference 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 a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical 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 reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.