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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 슬롯 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major 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 examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having 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 coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or 무료 프라그마틱 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor 프라그마틱 순위 at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.