• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relationship advantages they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has a few disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances 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 such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for 프라그마틱 체험 무료 슬롯버프 (bookmarksusa.com) pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 체험 (mouse click the next web site) z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several 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 in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on 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 this even when they were able to create patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.