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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that 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, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, 프라그마틱 on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge 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 specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.