Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues,
프라그마틱 환수율 프라그마틱 무료스핀 -
click through the next page, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 DCTs were then examined 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 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and 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 of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and
프라그마틱 무료게임 in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
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) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
