Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For 프라그마틱 무료 , they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which 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 subject 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] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.