Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners 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 consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In 프라그마틱 is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.
