Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, 프라그마틱 무료 they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. 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 further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also 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 participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 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 their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 이미지 (Full Review) identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings 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. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as 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 literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built 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 learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.