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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor 프라그마틱 무료 in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may 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 investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료버프 - Deepzone.Net - metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s 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 are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

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

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the 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. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for 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 research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which are best left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger 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 that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.