Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for 무료 프라그마틱 (Tinybookmarks.Com) cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.
DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 환수율 (This Web page) including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, 프라그마틱 무료체험 the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 무료 프라그마틱 Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” and “thank you.” This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using 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 help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
(Image: https://pragmatickr.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/94EBBCB7EB888BEB9CB3ED849DEAB8A7EDB1-A1EAA0-160x73.png)Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.
