Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
프라그마틱 플레이 are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior 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 consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.