Activity

Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs’ understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students’ ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than 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 at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants’ actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs’ preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as “foreigners” and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren’t the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

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 are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard , and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.