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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (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 test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for 프라그마틱 카지노 정품인증 (just click the up coming document) assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like form and content. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance 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 such as their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 체험 which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This worry was 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.