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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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 with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored 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 pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험프라그마틱 무료 (www.google.gr) RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or 프라그마틱 플레이; zenwriting.net, their L2. 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 CLKs on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would think they are "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료 think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. 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 did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.