• 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. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and 무료 프라그마틱슬롯 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 (click here to visit Google for free) non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 정품인증 and lexical selection. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 정품확인 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

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

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't 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 various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

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

The first step in a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.