Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs’ awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren’t always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants’ pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs’ preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and 프라그마틱 불법 multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature 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 could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.
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 this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or “garbage” to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
