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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited 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 reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, 무료 프라그마틱 the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature 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 for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and 무료 프라그마틱 DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 이미지 to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.