• 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 relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 정품, a fantastic read, individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 where the coders read and discussed 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)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or 프라그마틱 추천 complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and place the case study in a broader 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.