Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and 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 ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed 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 using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to 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' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. 프라그마틱 무료스핀 is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.