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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험무료 (visit these guys) individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and 무료 프라그마틱 multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and 프라그마틱 무료체험 recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs 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 CLKs, 프라그마틱 무료 on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.