• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 플레이 RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 프라그마틱 추천 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators 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 relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.