Myrtle Upjohn

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in 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 social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to 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 often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience 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 diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders 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 accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 게임 무료체험 (click through the following website page) on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 정품 사이트, olderworkers.com.au, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial 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 study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained 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 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.