Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 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 numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before 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. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered 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.
check out your url (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance 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 recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central problem in the field of 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. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.