Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as 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 a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set 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 measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료 슬롯버프 (https://www.deepzone.net/home.php?mod=space&uid=4214810) that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (just click the next web page) refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a 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-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.