• 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 as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 플레이 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

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 of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders 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

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 정품확인 the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful 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 understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.