Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics,
프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율,
social40.com link for more info, the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for 프라그마틱 무료체험 (
social40.com link for more info) analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and
프라그마틱 이미지 정품 (
Visit Homepage) L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to 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 this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic 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, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct 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.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to 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.
