• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand 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' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed 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' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or 프라그마틱 플레이 not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, 프라그마틱 이미지 the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, 프라그마틱 the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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 second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.