Dammcovington7790
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.
A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually 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 may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.
In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews with Refusal
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in 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 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.
