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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is 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 could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required 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 무료 프라그마틱 z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a 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 participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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 in either their L1 or their 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 CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness 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. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in 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 are important to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, 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 showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 환수율 - read this blog post from Socialfactories, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and 프라그마틱 슬롯 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 an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.