Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for
프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 example, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for
프라그마틱 슬롯무료 example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating 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 strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however,
프라그마틱 무료 that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of 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 looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending 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 converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and
프라그마틱 정품인증 put the issue in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on 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 tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
