• 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 pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 순위 슬롯 팁 (Recommended Website) transcribed, and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

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 this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for 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 investigate a particular subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, 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 choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.