Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews 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 (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the 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, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 하는법 (https://bookmarknap.com/story8273480/why-no-One-cares-about-Live-casino) and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about 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 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research 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 you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Additionally, the participants in this 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 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.