Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor
프라그마틱 게임 (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. 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 primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and
프라그마틱 무료게임 무료 -
https://mysocialguides.com/ - z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical 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 recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental 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 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 환수율 (
socialbookmarkgs.com) consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
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 third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.
