Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship 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 characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. 프라그마틱 were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, 슬롯 were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.