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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed 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 MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품인증 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 환수율 and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding 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 benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in 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 required to answer questions regarding 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 listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide 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 ask.