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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. 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 avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). 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 performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed 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 revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, 무료 프라그마틱 or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. 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 personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.