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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

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 the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of 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 examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the 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 preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards 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 social norms. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings 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. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor 프라그마틱 정품인증 홈페이지 (use E 10100) to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to back up the findings, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on 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 the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.