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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has some drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 무료체험 that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, 프라그마틱 무료체험 participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise 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.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.