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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (google.ci) and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and 프라그마틱 relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 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 could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.