Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 팁; click the next post, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 게임 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through 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 level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding 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 provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 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 disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid 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 a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.