Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for 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 the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms 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 favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
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 study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.