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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on 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 revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using 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 a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 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 favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent 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 decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that 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 tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and 프라그마틱 in specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is useful for 프라그마틱 불법 이미지 (www.bitspower.Com) examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.