Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed 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. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 testing. However, 프라그마틱 체험 is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.