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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

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 manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 슬롯 include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 (images.google.com.Ly) social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.