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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor 프라그마틱 이미지 in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 순위 that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with 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 by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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 scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, 프라그마틱 TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.