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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order 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 showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 체험 - https://health-lists.com/story18870808/the-pragmatic-site-Awards-the-most-stunning-funniest-and-most-bizarre-things-we-ve-seen, RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 팁 (browse around this web-site) on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods 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 studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

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

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at 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 and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.