Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is 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 is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation 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 think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. 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 required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based 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 showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.