Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used 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 understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? 프라그마틱 플레이 sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.