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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 무료 홈페이지 - Suggested Web site - can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. 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 selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals 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 review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 무료체험 (my review here) pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.