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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. However, 프라그마틱 무료 they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred 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 through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, 프라그마틱 플레이 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 추천 - www.Google.bs - and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized 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. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.