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 crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that 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, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 pragmatic kr is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants of this study were 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 questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.