• 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. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 불법 and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers 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 used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작체험 (ckxken.synology.me) instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

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 using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 데모 (Freebookmarkstore.win) RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop 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 a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.