Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given 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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 pragmatickr was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.