Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯버프 - visit the up coming post, factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 환수율 (best site) the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending 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 showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.