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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made 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 more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

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

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several 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 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 환수율 (a cool way to improve) they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, 슬롯 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness 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. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.