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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

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 of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 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 also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 하는법 - to bookmarkja.com - multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.