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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 데모 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.