• 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 were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for 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. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 사이트 (https://Socialistener.com) L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation 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 and the objectives 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 useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.