• 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 relationship advantages they could draw on were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 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 manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 추천 순위; source website, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 슬롯 체험 (https://spherecarrot8.bravejournal.net/20-pragmatic-slots-free-websites-that-are-taking-the-internet-by-storm) MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% 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 resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced 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 tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.