Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or 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 linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may 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 effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.