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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 플레이 정품인증 (Http://www.jsgml.top/bbs/Home.php?mod=space&uid=384678) turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 정품확인방법 (https://www.google.st/url?q=https://telegra.ph/10-Factors-To-Know-About-Slot-You-Didnt-Learn-At-School-09-19) example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either 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, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using 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 essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.