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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 추천 (click here to read) can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to 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, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and 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.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question 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. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational advantages. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources including interviews, observations, 프라그마틱 무료게임 and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily 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 of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.