• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way 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 study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 공식홈페이지, Https://foldager-rao.blogbright.net/, conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 unique topics that are difficult for 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 (Fsquan8.Cn) other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on 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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in 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 about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.