Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
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 numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and 프라그마틱 추천 플레이; simply click the up coming article, DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 슬롯체험 (Dermandar.Com) recorded by two coders who were independent, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying 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 matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.