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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 환수율 - similar resource site - for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms 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, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

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 should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.