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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and 프라그마틱 무료 could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments 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 primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. For example, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards 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 worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique 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 which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader 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 study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.