Lindgreen User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean


In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. ????? ???? to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 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 the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.

Member since: Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Website: https://mccormick-worm-2.hubstack.net/15-undeniable-reasons-to-love-pragmatic-site