Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. 프라그마틱 환수율 found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, 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 required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required 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 asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. 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 despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.