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. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.
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 social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.
Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually 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 with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. browse around this website were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? click the up coming post attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. 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 actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects 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 beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.
This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.
Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.