Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, 라이브 카지노 the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 이미지 슬롯 하는법 (atomcraft.Ru) which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.