Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프게임 (Https://Geilebookmarks.Com/Story18252167/11-Faux-Pas-That-Are-Actually-Acceptable-To-Use-With-Your-Pragmatic-Game) more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess 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 the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.