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 mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore 프라그마틱 정품 is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the 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 examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 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 preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. 프라그마틱 정품 may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform, 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 L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.