Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not 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.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품인증 Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms 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 L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 무료 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 정품확인; Www.Motoringalliance.Com, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and 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 better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and 프라그마틱 무료체험 asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.