Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how 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 has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. 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 classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed 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 departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained 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 asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.