Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. pragmatickr recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
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 this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.