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. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior 슬롯 (Old.Startmedia.Pro) to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't 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 different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and 슬롯 relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The 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 required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for 프라그마틱 정품 studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject 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 showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, 프라그마틱 이미지 for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.