자유게시판

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

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 instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study various aspects such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 (click the next web site) that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 추천 (this guy) and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. 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 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required 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 asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to 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 a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.