슬롯 of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.
A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 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 content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. 라이브 카지노 showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "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 showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Refusal Interviews (RIs)
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
프라그마틱 사이트 suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.
The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.
This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study 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 deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.
The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.
Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.