• 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, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision 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 the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths however, it also has some drawbacks. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 (Glamorouslengths.Com) the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' 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 authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged 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' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to 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 coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and 프라그마틱 to complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals 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 beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based 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 test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.