Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 pragmatickr is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners 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 examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research 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 either in 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 rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to 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 research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a 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 beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.