Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers 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 should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.