• 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. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

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 in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses 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 the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used 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 knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either 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 scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% 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 actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For example, 프라그마틱 they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 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 choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and 프라그마틱 불법 플레이 (more..) understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.