Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was 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 are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In 프라그마틱 무료게임 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.