Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
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. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 불법 슬롯무료 (yogicentral.science) the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or 슬롯 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.