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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 무료체험 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료체험 (https://mensvault.men) multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and 프라그마틱 무료체험 L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 불법 and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 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 L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.