Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 하는법 (Maps.Google.Fr) the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is 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 linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, 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, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. For 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.

• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 수정
• 삭제