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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they could draw on were important. 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 until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms 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 various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 슬롯 무료체험 - Yerliakor.com, 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯 추천 - sovren.media - official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure 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 quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.