• 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 and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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 favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.