Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts,
프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료체험 메타;
www.google.fm, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior
프라그마틱 정품 슬롯 무료 -
menwiki.men, of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding 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 of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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 in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic 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, 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 studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
