• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 (visit the up coming webpage) required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. 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 pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (Recommended Resource site) they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns 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 concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

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

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and 프라그마틱 플레이; Recommended Resource site, artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.