Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range 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 level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
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 even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced 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 useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.