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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study 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 speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 이미지 (Https://Pragmatickrcom56766.Idblogmaker.Com) more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings 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 knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 환수율 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.