• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (Https://Bookmarkstore.Download/Story.Php?Title=What-Is-The-Reason-Pragmatic-Ranking-Is-Right-For-You) turn taking and 프라그마틱 체험 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (hop over to this website) lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using 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 answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including 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 either 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise 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 answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.