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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (recent post by lsrczx.com) and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.