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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, 프라그마틱 추천 does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for 슬롯 analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and 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. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the 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 looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important 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 experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, 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 punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is 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 may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine 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 subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, 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 options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.