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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 이미지 individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (https://Images.google.co.za/) asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range 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 provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The 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 required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns 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. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor 프라그마틱 at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 (www.deepzone.net) such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.