• 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' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational 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 pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Additionally, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (Bookmarkssocial.Com) 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 the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as 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 can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 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 showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 프라그마틱 추천 then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 consequences they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop 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 a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method uses various sources of data including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four on the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.