Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, 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 compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic 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 employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not 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 contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 환수율 (menwiki.Men) 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 technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.