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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 무료 프라그마틱 순위, Ask.Mgbg7B3bdcu.Net, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked 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 reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료 프라그마틱체험 슬롯버프 (xojh.Cn) believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators improve their methods of 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 research method that focuses on intensive, 프라그마틱 슬롯 participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This 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 highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select 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 personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.