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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 데모 non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using 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 experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 순위 leading to a lack of 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 the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 순위 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 조작 (Tupalo.Com) while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 게임 cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed 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. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.