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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL for 프라그마틱 데모 instance were able to cite their local professor 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 (https://www.google.com.sb/url?q=http://ezproxy.cityu.Edu.hk/login?url=https://squareblogs.net/chordforest17/why-pragmatic-slot-experience-will-be-your-next-big-obsession) relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

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 a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, 프라그마틱 like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to 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 lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.