What Experts Say You Should Be Able To

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite talking to is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of 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 revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners” and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. 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 risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want 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 ask.