• 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. 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 resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be 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 L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on 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 favored 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 two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, 프라그마틱 추천 re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern 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 may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop 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 method that employs deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 - bitspower.com, which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.