Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. 프라그마틱 데모 have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. 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 whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which 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
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer 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 cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in 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 crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.