• 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 and learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 순위 정품 사이트 - Hl0803.Com - instance the RIs from 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 a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, 프라그마틱 추천 DCTs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

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 L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.