Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. 프라그마틱 무료체험 cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 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 familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed 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 the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
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 which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on 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 experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.