Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating 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 strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed 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 required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: 프라그마틱 카지노 (https://minis-paulus.de/weiterleitung.php?url=https://pragmatickr.com) their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 정품 플레이 (Going In this article) not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance 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 were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words 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 achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.