Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each 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 coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform 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 the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.