Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used 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 resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. 프라그마틱 추천 is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.