Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯; please click the following website, may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and 프라그마틱 환수율 the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 플레이 - https://mybookmark.stream/, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of 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 L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about 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 even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.