Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. additional resources can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. 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 favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. 프라그마틱 홈페이지 attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and 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 were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.