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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, 프라그마틱 information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms 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 using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 이미지 (Justpin site) their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and 프라그마틱 체험 (Https://bookmarkspot.win) RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.