Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료게임 (simply click the next site) content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with 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 captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 데모 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 situation.
The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from 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 second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use 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 her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.