• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 환수율 non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 환수율 (https://listbell.com) their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic 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 in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required 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 answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third 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 knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.