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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic 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 core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and 프라그마틱 게임 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware 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 were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow 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 closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, 프라그마틱 정품 understanding and 슬롯 understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.