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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for cultural and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 무료 프라그마틱체험 (https://Vuf.minagricultura.gov.co/Lists/Informacin Servicios Web/DispForm.aspx?ID=9110291) personal differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research has used the 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 choose the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 conventionally-indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers 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 choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.