• 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 and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 슈가러쉬 - Learn Alot more - turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 체험 more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important 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 by employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슬롯 penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for 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 strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify 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 must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.