Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
프라그마틱 불법 of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to 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 independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as 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 subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, 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 choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.