Albrektsen User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).


This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, ????? ???? compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted 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. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. 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 connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.

Member since: Monday, September 16, 2024

Website: https://vang-johannsen-2.technetbloggers.de/looking-into-the-future-how-will-the-how-to-check-the-authenticity-of-pragmatic-industry-look-like-in-10-years