Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:
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, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.
In 슬롯 , DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose 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 discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.
The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. 라이브 카지노 was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.