• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

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 investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as 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 for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 무료프라그마틱 게임 - Spectr-Sb116.Ru - example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. 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 on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose 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 helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in 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 of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.