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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, 무료 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (click the next webpage) and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less 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. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, 프라그마틱 체험, helpful hints, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of 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 to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.