In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider 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 this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.
