What Experts Say You Should Know
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of 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 avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.
A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.
DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 추천 and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 (view publisher site) their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic 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 on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence 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 basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.
The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.
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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.
The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.