Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be 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 for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. 프라그마틱 정품확인 included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
프라그마틱 카지노 suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority 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 so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
