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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools 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 level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 정품 확인법 (More hints) Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 이미지 (via Metooo) 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 choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.