What Experts From The Field Want You To Know?

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In 프라그마틱 환수율 , the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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 year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.