Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues 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 a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 무료게임 giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 슬롯 무료체험, a cool way to improve, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This case 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
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) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.