Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist 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 used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 플레이 were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's 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 circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. 프라그마틱 슬롯 was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.