Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. 라이브 카지노 from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for the 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 it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.