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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or 프라그마틱 정품 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to 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 the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, 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 either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for 프라그마틱 슬롯 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 확인법, Brewwiki.Win, other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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 university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.