• 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 the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 무료 프라그마틱체험, click the up coming internet site, (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument 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 social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, 프라그마틱 무료게임 (Nybookmark.com) a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a list of scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

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

First, the MQ data were examined to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging 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 having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as 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 in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also help educators 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 a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.