Pearson User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.


In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs 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. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. ???? were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.

Member since: Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Website: https://posteezy.com/11-faux-pas-are-actually-ok-make-your-pragmatic-image