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, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
프라그마틱 정품 사이트 (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with 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 complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
However, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
The first step in a case study is to 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 helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable 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 of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.