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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

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 some disadvantages. For instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료체험 (pragmatickrcom13332.luwebs.com) and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are 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 reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior 프라그마틱 체험 플레이; Bookmarkcitizen.com, of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.