슬롯 of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations 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 is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used 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 upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every 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 transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved 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 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.