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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in 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. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist 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 most significant tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 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 also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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 from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 체험 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 사이트 complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing 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 an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.