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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of 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 example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why 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 connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 무료프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 정품확인 (https://redhotbookmarks.com/Story18036320/a-how-to-guide-for-pragmatic-free-trial-from-start-to-finish) and that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. 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 examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.