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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 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 numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 무료프라그마틱 체험 [head to bookmarkzones.trade] 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain 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 allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.