Greene User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. ????? ?? ??? can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist 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, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. ????? ???? can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives, 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 determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies


The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. ????? ?? will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.

Member since: Thursday, September 12, 2024

Website: https://anotepad.com/notes/gtcqt35r