Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 홈페이지 (Xojh.Cn) L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 슬롯 and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (Www.Google.Co.Zm) which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.