Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the 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 studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify 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 using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred 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 basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and
프라그마틱 무료 Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 홈페이지 (
bookmarkdistrict.Com) observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and
프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (
research by the staff of Linkdirectory 724) understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
