Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was 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 investigated Chinese learners making 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 with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. 프라그마틱 have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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 the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.