Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
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 examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found 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 should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities,
프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 무료체험 (
shorl.com published an article) their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
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 this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. 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.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
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 should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
