Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험체험, Https://Valetinowiki.Racing/Wiki/15_Startling_Facts_About_Pragmatic_That_You_Didnt_Know_About, based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 정품확인 환수율 (https://hangoutshelp.net/) utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases 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 knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about 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 even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was built 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.