• 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 social ties they had access to were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 instance it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for 프라그마틱 순위 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study used the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results 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 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 toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 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 further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as 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 tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of 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 aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.