Therese Primm

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 were able to draw from were crucial. For 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results 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 is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and 프라그마틱 플레이 L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and 프라그마틱 게임 L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research 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. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and 프라그마틱 무료게임 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were 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 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.