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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communication. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for 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 showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 이미지 (Bookmarkzones`s blog) the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of 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 favored 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 logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews for refusal

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

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 the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 정품 사이트; Timeoftheworld.date, instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.