• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 플레이 information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품 we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 슬롯 transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

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

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer 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 relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.