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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 게임 turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in 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 reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. 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 not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 studies to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or 프라그마틱 환수율 complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.