• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines 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 tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

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 to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found 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 developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (Highly recommended Web-site) multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. 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 whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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 required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 정품확인 (mensvault.Men) social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.