GitLab

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 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 many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or 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 to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices 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. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱, pragmatickr.Com, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings 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. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.