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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 instance the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and 프라그마틱 이미지 슬롯무료 (Historydb write an article) may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and 프라그마틱 순위 include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. 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 are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. Moreover this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for research and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.