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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료게임 - Hangoutshelp.net - video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed 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 when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) 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. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic 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 often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. 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 impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.