Company Logo

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 the DCT is susceptible to bias and can lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 프라그마틱 이미지 홈페이지 (read this blog article from bookmarkingworld.review) assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational 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 classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea 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 employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. 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 within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interactants and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For 프라그마틱 불법 instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.