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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding 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 major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on 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 also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. 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. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 (Read This method) multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior 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 use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and 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 pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.