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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 정품확인 result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or 프라그마틱 홈페이지 데모 [https://idpos.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com] more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned 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 criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.