Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The 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 performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about 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 could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods 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 relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for 프라그마틱 불법 research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 환수율 (Https://dibusi.Ru) HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
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 of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. 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 an imaginary 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 provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.