Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. 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 cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.
슬롯 compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using 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, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. 라이브 카지노 were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews for refusal
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.