자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (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 (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, 프라그마틱 정품 like politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices 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. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered 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 examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives as well as their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 (socialdummies.com) L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to 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 understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each 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 were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders who then coded them. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 사이트 multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of multiple data sources including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals 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 study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their quality of response.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. 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 co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For example, 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 despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.