Catalina Tolentino

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

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

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 무료슬롯 (Bookmarkbells.com) used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. 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 within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, 프라그마틱 플레이 무료슬롯 (click to find out more) and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.