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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of 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 useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded 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 include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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 DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of 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 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted the local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to 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. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.