Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (https://maps.google.com.lb/url?q=https://falkenberg-petterson-2.Hubstack.net/10-things-everybody-hates-about-pragmatic-slots-free-trial) (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (vangsgaard-mckinnon.technetbloggers.de`s recent blog post) instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. 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 used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing 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 (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best 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 in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.