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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an 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. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (from Free Bookmarking) refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 플레이 they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the 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 closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations 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 concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.