Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful 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 could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for 프라그마틱 무료체험 experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, 프라그마틱 추천 무료체험 메타 (www.som-Msk.ru) DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a 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. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 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 a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.