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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: 프라그마틱 their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 - see this, in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism 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 were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.