Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 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 manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 이미지, maps.google.com.Sa, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may 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 examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for 프라그마틱 게임 - click through the next article - official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm 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. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.