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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects, including the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 추천 and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine 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 on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 [appc.cctvdgrw.Com] not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies 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 an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger 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 this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. 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 so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.