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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot take into account cultural and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 personal differences in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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 promoted more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower 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, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

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

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. 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 consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

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 what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon 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 tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.