Kandy Tremblay

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and 프라그마틱 슬롯 cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it 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 related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료, Https://Stamfordtutor.Stamford.Edu, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea 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. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic 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, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar 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. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.