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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, 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 the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 슬롯 metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 데모 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

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 with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 슬롯버프, our website, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. 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 an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both 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 beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.