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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for 프라그마틱 무료체험 (Https://Images.Google.Com.Ly) instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. 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 further study on alternative methods for 프라그마틱 무료체험 testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally 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 including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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 norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, 프라그마틱 무료 for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.