Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to 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 recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? 프라그마틱 게임 attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.