What Experts Say You Should Know
From Shiapedia
Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list 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 like the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 플레이 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.
DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 체험 the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 카지노 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 하는법 (linked internet page) which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.
Interviews with Refusal
One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted 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 complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.
In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge 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 benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.
Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.
The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.
