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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and 프라그마틱 플레이 슬롯 하는법 (85.214.112.116) discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 무료체험 penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced 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 a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.