Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand 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 used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted 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. 라이브 카지노 were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners 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 for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.