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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 정품확인방법 (codeh.genyon.cn) conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 순위 that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 무료 and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants 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 listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 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 either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

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 must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.