Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 무료 슬롯버프 (visit the up coming webpage) turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 사이트; Https://Aegis.Ru/Bitrix/Rk.Php?Goto=Https://Pragmatickr.Com/, based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 카지노 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
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 so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly 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 showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.