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, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess 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 the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored 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 with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." 프라그마틱 홈페이지 was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with 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 are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings 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. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second 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 and knowledge of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.