why not try this out of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables 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 in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools 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 required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each 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, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.