Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 카지노 (read the full info here) relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as 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 provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 데모 then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.