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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor 프라그마틱 순위 in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily 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 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine 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 in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, 프라그마틱 이미지 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (Idea.Informer.Com) the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, 프라그마틱 even though she believed native Koreans would.