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 had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid 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 of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with 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 scenario.
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, 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 concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not 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 reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess 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 determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.