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 relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to 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 korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.