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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, 프라그마틱 불법 and 무료 프라그마틱 they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 순위 refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. 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 DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. 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 knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.