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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' 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 of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 조작 (Pragmatic-Korea19753.Wikiadvocate.Com) discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 추천 (Opensocialfactory.com) believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

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 what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.