• 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 and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, 프라그마틱 슬롯 환수율 슈가러쉬 (click here to visit Justpin for free) but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 플레이 (Https://Opencbc.Com/Home.Php?Mod=Space&Uid=3554471) example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

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 manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 슬롯무료 (click the up coming site) collecting data.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance 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 analysed 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 of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Interviews for refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or their 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 more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors, such as relational affordances. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was 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 could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes various sources of information to support the findings, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing specific or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks 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 tended to choose wrong answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said 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 despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.