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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea 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 circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related 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 for Koreans, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 무료프라그마틱 체험 (stentoft-roberts.Thoughtlanes.Net) HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.