Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for
프라그마틱 정품확인방법 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 사이트 (
Www.Pdc.Edu) research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and
프라그마틱 정품확인방법 정품 사이트 (
https://Blogfreely.net/) conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic 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 independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options,
프라그마틱 정품 which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.
