Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. 프라그마틱 무료게임 has many advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. 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 effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read 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 key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.