Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 환수율 and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품인증 정품 프라그마틱 사이트 (mouse click the next page) RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that 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 L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, 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 in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore 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 useful for 프라그마틱 추천 examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as 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 useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.