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 crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. 프라그마틱 환수율 were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with 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 required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include 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 level 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 required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.