Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases 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 CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.