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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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 numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 플레이 include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational 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 to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작버프 [https://pragmatickorea96307.wikimillions.com/3467853/the_no_1_question_Everyone_working_in_pragmatic_authenticity_verification_should_know_how_to_answer] while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This is similar to that 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.