Cortez User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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 with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners” and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

????? ?? was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.

Member since: Saturday, September 14, 2024

Website: https://www.metooo.co.uk/u/66e562c8b6d67d6d177d505a