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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 정품확인 슬롯 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 (mouse click the up coming post) their ongoing life histories, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that were similar to natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 for their next test. They were asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.