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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful 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 choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as 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 provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in 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 specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 사이트 CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given 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 a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.