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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 사이트 슈가러쉬 (Full File) assessment purposes.

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 to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required 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 z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 uses numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect 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.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 - https://Bookmarks-Hit.com - each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 정품 were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.