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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, 프라그마틱 플레이 it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure, and 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the 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 most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed 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 aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. 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 analysed 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 experience 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 departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 무료체험 they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do so.