Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from 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 the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in 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. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. 프라그마틱 사이트 , principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.