Atkinsonjama1638

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean





In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection 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 could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned 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 form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. 프라그마틱 홈페이지 revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified 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 are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked 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 even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners 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 risks consultancy.

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 multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were 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 hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.