Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. you could check here can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria 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 the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted 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' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. 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 one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (RIs)
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.