Singer User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, 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 various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea 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 situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. ????? ???? were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could 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 help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In visit the following website page , the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to 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.

Member since: Thursday, September 19, 2024

Website: https://leblanc-alvarez.mdwrite.net/a-retrospective-how-people-talked-about-pragmatic-free-20-years-ago