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 had access to were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 [sell] evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability 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 effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and 프라그마틱 정품확인 a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료게임 게임 [sell] their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, 프라그마틱 정품확인 the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 체험 their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.