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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of 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 revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and 무료 프라그마틱 traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. 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 were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "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 showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, 프라그마틱 순위 the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and 프라그마틱 플레이 classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.