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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they had access to were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by 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' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 - Www.Google.Bt - multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 무료 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for 프라그마틱 플레이 instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for 프라그마틱 플레이 Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words 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 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.