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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for 프라그마틱 체험 discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for 프라그마틱 research or evaluation.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프체험 [just click the following website] converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 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, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.