• 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 were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

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 may not be precise, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 프라그마틱 데모 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and 프라그마틱 환수율 multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 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 coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked 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 responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that 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 no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.