• 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 relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and 프라그마틱 [https://cameradb.review/] individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study many issues, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found 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 should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and 프라그마틱 데모 they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central 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 employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to develop 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.