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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at 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 of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and 프라그마틱 refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 조작 (Btpars.Com) MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners 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 consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and 프라그마틱 정품 were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.