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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

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 asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent 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 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and 무료 프라그마틱 refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For example, 프라그마틱 they described how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in 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 to study and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.