• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 정품인증 the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 슬롯; Bbs.01Pc.Cn, a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. 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, 프라그마틱 플레이 did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. Furthermore, 라이브 카지노 they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider 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 study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.