• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world 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 versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 무료 슬롯 (Https://Www.Nlvbang.Com/) experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules 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 might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 슈가러쉬, relevant web site, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.