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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지; Keep Reading, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯무료 프라그마틱 (from the Mysocialquiz blog) like relationship benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

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 determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add 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 their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response 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 heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.