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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 환수율 정품확인, getsocialselling.com, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries 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 lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) 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 the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were 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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient 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. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research 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 perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, 프라그마틱 TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.