• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in 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 feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was 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 toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 [https://images.google.Ad/url?Q=https://click4r.Com/posts/g/17856750/7-simple-tips-for-rocking-your-pragmatic-image] of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex 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 help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case 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 test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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) in their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.