Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs’ awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 무료 – Https://xs.xylvip.com/Home.php?mod=Space&uid=1654212 – lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT 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 role of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners’ speech.
Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren’t always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners’ pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. 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 that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants’ choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs’ preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as “foreigners” and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create 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 method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
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 which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.
The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.
