• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore the DCT can be biased and may lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 추천 (Ilovebookmark.Com) then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, 프라그마틱 카지노 DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences, as well as their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreigners" and 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 think they were unintelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers 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, further reducing their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 in their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.