Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based 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 favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first 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 think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. 프라그마틱 체험 referred to external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.