Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, 프라그마틱 체험 and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored 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 their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료슬롯 - olderworkers.Com.au - 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference 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 in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.