Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including 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 speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
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 favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through 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 intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections 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 a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs 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 first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may 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 cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. 프라그마틱 게임 were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.