Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. 프라그마틱 데모 focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 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 to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess 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 showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". Going Listed here is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on 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 logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.