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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 데모 (https://bookmarkspiral.Com/story18125942/the-reason-pragmatic-experience-is-the-most-wanted-item-in-2024) analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist 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 warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent 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 to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 정품 확인법 (bookmarkrange.Com) not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism 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, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

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

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.