• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 정품 analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and 프라그마틱 무료체험 is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making 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 of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and 프라그마틱 환수율 their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. 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's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed 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 key 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 employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.