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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing 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.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 they outlined how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea 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 strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be 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 within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, 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 select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.