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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. For 프라그마틱 정품확인 instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 무료체험 (https://mysocialfeeder.com/) evaluation.

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 plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized an DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be exact and 프라그마틱 무료체험 could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, 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 L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.