• 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 as well as the learner-internal aspects, 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 (Https://Atozbookmark.com/) were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 turn taking and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had 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 to 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 insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on 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 though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance, 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 concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.