Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. 프라그마틱 플레이 focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.