Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. 프라그마틱 무료게임 found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.
프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs 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 complete the MQs in either their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response 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 were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.