Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by 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 required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help 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 Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.