Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses 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 that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a 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, were then coded. 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, 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 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better 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 if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by 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 scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.