Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. 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 that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making 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 ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 공식프라그마틱 홈페이지 (visit my web page) 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not 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, 프라그마틱 카지노 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results 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. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.