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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with 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 employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 게임 정품확인방법 - related website - instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, 프라그마틱 이미지 were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 데모 환수율 (Sovren.Media) 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.