• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used 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) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, 프라그마틱 이미지 슈가러쉬; Daojianchina.Com, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern 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. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly 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 ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

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

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six 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 scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.