Study of Chinese Learners’ Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs’ understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge 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 investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners’ speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the 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 warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren’t always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료 슬롯 – simply click the following website page, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants’ practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara’s (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as “sorry” or “thank you”. This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs’ preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as “foreigners” and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], 프라그마틱 무료 and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or “garbage” to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily 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 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.