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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they had access to were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or assessment.

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 to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major 프라그마틱 무료게임 슬롯 무료 (Www.xuetu123.com) challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation 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 required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and 프라그마틱 추천 불법 (https://zzb.bz) in different cultural 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 create better methods for 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 investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.