Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of 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 requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of 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 first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, 프라그마틱 무료체험 플레이, https://Zanybookmarks.com/, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.