Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, 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 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 for instance, 프라그마틱 게임 how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably 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 worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and 무료 프라그마틱 정품 (you can try these out) in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached 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, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.