• 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 draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for 프라그마틱 무료체험 공식프라그마틱 홈페이지 (World-news.Wiki) discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

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 issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed 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, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to 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 프라그마틱 정품확인 transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.