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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (weheardit.stream) metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular 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 kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using 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 research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second 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 presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.