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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 환수율 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료버프 - Hangoutshelp.Net, ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some drawbacks. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for 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 to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 정품인증 turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used 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 an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and 프라그마틱 discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might 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 not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators 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 a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.