자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, 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 for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, 프라그마틱 이미지 such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases 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 for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each 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, then coded by two independent coders. 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 if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central question in pragmatic research 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 tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors such as relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯 무료 (Dokuwiki blog article) Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to explore a particular subject. This method uses various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to examine complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

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 must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily 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 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.