Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or
프라그마틱 체험 assessment purposes.
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 of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks,
프라그마틱 슬롯체험 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "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 default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
This case study was built 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in 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 interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example,
프라그마틱 순위 슬롯
프라그마틱 무료체험,
Play56.net, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.
