Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
프라그마틱 불법 examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite 프라그마틱 불법 , the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based 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 learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.