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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful 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 alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and 프라그마틱 카지노 불법 (click here.) video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in 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 were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯체험 (Discover More) believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents 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 define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.