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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료게임 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 lexical choices. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

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, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, 프라그마틱 사이트 they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to 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. 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. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their 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 no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger 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 experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.