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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed 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 an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of 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 third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯 무료 (other) pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.