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 had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers study 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 emerged as 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 lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined 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 of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to 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 knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. 프라그마틱 사이트 should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.