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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For instance, 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and 무료 프라그마틱 non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified 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 not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 정품확인 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs 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. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, 프라그마틱 the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.