• 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 as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in 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 of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 such as the content and 프라그마틱 체험 the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. 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 the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine 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 put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in 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 and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 체험 (similar site) asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.