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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and 프라그마틱 정품 may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in 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 different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and 프라그마틱 정품인증 multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 데모 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 데모 the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, 프라그마틱 무료체험 principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and 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 tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of 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, understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.