Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean
In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).
This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:
Discourse Construction Tests
The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.
Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.
In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness,
프라그마틱 정품확인 turn-taking,
프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슈가러쉬 (
Https://Worldsocialindex.Com/) and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.
A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.
DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.
A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.
Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)
This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.
The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain 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 words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.
The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.
Interviews for refusal
One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.
The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.
The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends 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 for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for
프라그마틱 무료 future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject.