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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 체험 (http://0lq70ey8Yz1b.com/home.php?Mod=space&uid=313806) in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine various issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법, similar web-site, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, 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 refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, 슬롯 did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural 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 improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.