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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, 프라그마틱 체험 사이트 (Pragmatickorea43196.Blog-A-Story.Com) the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 환수율 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.