• 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. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used 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 led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 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 converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based 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 the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.