Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized 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 are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 체험 (https://hangoutshelp.net/user/tinpine2) including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 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 choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique 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 which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and 프라그마틱 무료게임 asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.