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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 [https://geilebookmarks.com/story18237241/the-10-most-scariest-things-about-pragmatic-genuine] which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 체험 giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by 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 asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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 scenario.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative 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, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.