Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using 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 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
프라그마틱 불법 suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.