Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.
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 to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 플레이 showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower 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 experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants 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 analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 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 revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on 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 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension 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 use when making demands. 슬롯사이트 were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.