• 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 learner-internal elements, were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁버프 (Http://Planforexams.Com) instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or evaluation.

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 manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (Chessdatabase.Science) dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs 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 L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 무료 did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at 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 explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Moreover, 프라그마틱 정품확인 the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example, claimed 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.