Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. 프라그마틱 카지노 should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using 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 resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.