Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As simply click the next website , it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 can be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand 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 emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.
In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
find out this here is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.
This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.
Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.