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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and 슬롯 the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. The RIs from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, 프라그마틱 무료게임 the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most important tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and 프라그마틱 체험 their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and 프라그마틱 then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was an iterative process in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required 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 over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes multiple data sources including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted 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 the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.