Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite 슬롯 , the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' 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 level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
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 was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted 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 consider their responses to the DCT situations.
프라그마틱 무료 showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the 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 usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within 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 revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.