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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and 프라그마틱 슬롯 플레이, Going At this website, utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of 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. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료 프라그마틱체험 (Visit Web Page) the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to 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 investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider 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 the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were 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 participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.