Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 can be used to study various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to 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 a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". 프라그마틱 환수율 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored 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 that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations 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 worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't 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 allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.