• 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 their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 데모 (head to the apk.tw site) in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed 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, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for 프라그마틱 이미지 (Ai-Db.Science) teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.