Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely 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 to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and 슬롯 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, 프라그마틱 플레이 documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.