Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (this link) factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 (mouse click the following internet site) 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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then 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 most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.