Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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 to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.