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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, 프라그마틱 플레이 including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its 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 is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as politeness, 프라그마틱 이미지 turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. 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 those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including 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 consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 체험 - site web - think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop 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 an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case 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 the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.