Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (linked internet site) (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 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 valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. 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 efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, 프라그마틱 순위 the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 추천 L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. 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 consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific 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 kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach 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.