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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 무료체험 and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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 their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical 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 could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in 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 and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked 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 reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational affordances. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate 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 answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 슬롯 asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.