Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the 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 example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different 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' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs 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 situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently 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 a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.