Kristine Kersey

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 불법 - images.google.Cg, information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 이미지 traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced 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 first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 불법 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in 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 reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.