• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used 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 then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent study DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and 프라그마틱 환수율 슬롯 조작 (Https://Thejillist.Com/) RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 (sneak a peek at this site) the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Moreover it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

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 which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors 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 lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.