In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 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 social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found 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 showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental 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 employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for Pragmatickr.Com future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
