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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. 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 should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and 프라그마틱 순위 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 [https://www.google.Bs/Url?q=http://idea.Informer.com/users/julyzephyr87/?what=personal] they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using 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 experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. 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 CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and 프라그마틱 데모 슬롯 조작, prev, then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 체험 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism 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 relational advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.