• 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument 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 related to politeness is 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, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked 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 even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and 슬롯 beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, 프라그마틱 순위 슈가러쉬 (talk.dofun.cc) and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.