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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. 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 an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for 프라그마틱 무료 analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence 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 had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료스핀 (Captainbookmark.com) transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native 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, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 체험 believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.