Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 카지노 (http://208.167.242.150:3000/Pragmaticplay5047/lauren2021/wiki/A-Look-At-The-Future-What's-In-The-Pipeline?-Pragmatic-Free-Trial-Slot-Buff-Industry-Look-Like-In-10-Years?) in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.