Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to 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 knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, 무료 프라그마틱 with the coders re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea 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 investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based 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 extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate 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.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.