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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 플레이 non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 슬롯 video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 순위 instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, 라이브 카지노 and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.