• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 체험 순위 [information from Naturalbookmarks] instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 personal differences in communication. 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 is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to 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 understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.