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. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship 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 could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain 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. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, 프라그마틱 무료 공식홈페이지, Socialupme.Com, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors 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 the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.