The Myths And Facts Behind Pragmatic
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 슬롯 information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.
A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of 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 the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the 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 completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 사이트; hangoutshelp.net, their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.
In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.
This case study was based 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.
Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.