Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).
This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower 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 of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered 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 resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs 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 results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Refusal Interviews
A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But additional resources is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.
무료슬롯 프라그마틱 was conducted 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed 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 attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach 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 hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.