Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or
프라그마틱 환수율 assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody,
프라그마틱 정품인증 information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for
프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects,
프라그마틱 데모 공식홈페이지 -
vikingwebtest.Berry.edu - including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.
Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more 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 to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.
The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on 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 the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and
프라그마틱 불법 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.
The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts.