• 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed 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 investigated Chinese learners making 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 at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using 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 of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 환수율 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of 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 a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.