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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

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 relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 데모 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and 프라그마틱 추천 should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought 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. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, 슬롯 they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.