• 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 factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the social ties they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 추천 사이트 - Freebookmarkstore.Win - example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required 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. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several 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 complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. 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 actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, 프라그마틱 the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.