Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and 무료 프라그마틱 the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율; simply click the next document, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. 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 implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, 프라그마틱 추천 정품인증 (Funbookmarking.Com) and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.