Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze 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 assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted 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 making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after 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 discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the one 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Pragmatic should reconsider the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.