• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

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

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often 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 designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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 the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, 프라그마틱 순위 as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference 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 understand the effect of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 메타 - Eternalbookmarks.com - were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.