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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, 프라그마틱 환수율 multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 플레이 L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 환수율 instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern 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 native friends would think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific 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 analyze complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.