Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and
프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).
This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)
The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and
프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 공식홈페이지 -
head to the mnobookmarks.com site - can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure,
프라그마틱 카지노 and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid 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 DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various 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, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.
DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of 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 investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.
The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.
The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.
Interviews for refusal
The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns 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 choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.
However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider 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 L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.
Case Studies
The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings.