Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
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. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
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 using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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 CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and 프라그마틱 플레이 데모 - single-bookmark.com, personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 무료체험; Click at Single Bookmark, such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in 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 technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.