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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used 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 of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, 프라그마틱 무료체험 DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 추천 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify 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 if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 환수율 (see this) to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.