Marcela Fort

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for 라이브 카지노 [pragmatic-korea31975.wiki-cms.com] analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making 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 level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and 프라그마틱 무료체험 hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.