• 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 make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor 프라그마틱 플레이 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프슬롯 (Bookmarkusers.com) (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used in research or evaluation.

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

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative 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 examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. In situations 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first 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 think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and 프라그마틱 이미지 LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had attained the level of four in 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 questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore was reluctant 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 do this.