• 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 were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, 라이브 카지노 like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, 라이브 카지노 metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 슈가러쉬 (visit the next website page) their current life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational affordances. 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 that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly 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 study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.