Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring 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 form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 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 performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. More suggestions were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why 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, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was built 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 particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to 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 demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.