CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and 프라그마틱 불법 traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate 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 such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent 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 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.
