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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and 프라그마틱 사이트 their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 플레이 in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 프라그마틱 추천 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of 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 regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.