Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause 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 alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals 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 that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.