• 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 pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 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 are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in 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 follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트무료 (stairways.Wiki) 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 testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 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 a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.