What Experts Say You Should Know
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for 프라그마틱 무료체험 analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 환수율 (sitesrow.com explained in a blog post) the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.
DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful 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 help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test 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 an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.
The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.
The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.