Doretha Ramon

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

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

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 무료 - https://hanley-barr.blogbright.net, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 research or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 (visit this weblink) turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making 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 intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to 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 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred 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 expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior 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 research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in 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 hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.