Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).
This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts,
프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.
A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, 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 can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.
A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.
The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move 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 convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and
프라그마틱 순위 read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.
Refusal Interviews
The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.
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 despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.
However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).
These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and
프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and
프라그마틱 test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.
Case Studies
The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings.
