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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

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 to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 불법 (degn-Espersen-2.Blogbright.net) the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 불법 their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 무료체험 - https://trade-britanica.trade/wiki/5_Pragmatic_Tips_You_Must_Know_About_For_2024 - the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 추천 to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 불법 complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.