Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. 프라그마틱 슬롯 employed various experimental tools such as 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 for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? 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. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 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 had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.