• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, 프라그마틱 추천 무료 프라그마틱체험 메타 - view maps.google.com.ua - MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked 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 and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational advantages. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 무료게임 instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.