Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs’ awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 무료 프라그마틱 but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for 프라그마틱 무료 research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners’ communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, 프라그마틱 데모 turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers 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 design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners’ pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants’ choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)’s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like “sorry” and “thank you.” This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs’ preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to 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 their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 이미지 슈가러쉬 (read this blog article from Easybookmark) Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic 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 counterparts might perceive them as “foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant’s well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.