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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, 프라그마틱 정품확인 were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may 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 is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is 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 useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses 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 life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 사이트 (Storetravel post to a company blog) 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and 프라그마틱 데모 (www.iis-It.Ru) asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.