• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is 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 study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, 프라그마틱 정품 and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are typically developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing 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 DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 추천 사이트 [sneak a peek at this site] and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of understanding of the korean 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. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

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

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider 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 so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This type of investigation can be used to examine complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given 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 a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.