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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor 무료 프라그마틱 in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for 프라그마틱 추천 cultural and individual differences. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or 프라그마틱 체험 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered 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 major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 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 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about 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, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research 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 perform the DCTs in their first language and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This worry was similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.