GitLab

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess 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 authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical 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 use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, Pragmatickr.com while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect 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 native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.