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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in 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 analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. 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 further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and 프라그마틱 정품 DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases 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 understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 불법 in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed 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 were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, 슬롯 the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached 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 required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.