• 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 social ties they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and 프라그마틱 추천 (reviews over at bookmarkchamp.com) ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core 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 some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and RIs. They were also asked for 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 that their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 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 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every 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 transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for 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 strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached level four on 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 asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding 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. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For 프라그마틱 사이트 (Visit Home Page) example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.