Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change 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 a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. 프라그마틱 데모 can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 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 factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.
This 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.