Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 프라그마틱 무료 include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 their current life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every 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 coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct 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 reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.