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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

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

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and 프라그마틱 플레이 classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in the 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 beneficial 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 such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to 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 add 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) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.