Bird User

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. ???? for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating 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. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, 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 were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.


Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). ????? ?? of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.

Member since: Wednesday, December 18, 2024

https://nerdgaming.science/wiki/The_10_Most_Scariest_Things_About_Pragmatic_Authenticity_Verification