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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 불법 (Read More Listed here) not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 무료 (Jisuzm.Tv) 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.