• 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 could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 슬롯 환수율 (nimmansocial.com) L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슬롯 조작 (Sb Bookmarking website) intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as 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 the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with 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.