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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important 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 many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 (Mirbatareek blog article) refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be 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 for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 슬롯 사이트 [Http://Mirbatareek.Ru] L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. 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 choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

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

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.