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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for 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. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 순위 (https://maps.google.Fr/) z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various 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 in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relationship benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. 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 default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for 프라그마틱 환수율 이미지; Http://Bbs.Lingshangkaihua.Com/, studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.