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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases 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' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In situations 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 CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other and 프라그마틱 사이트 then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, 프라그마틱 게임 documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue 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 experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and 프라그마틱 게임 슬롯 하는법 [Gram-pridgen-2.technetbloggers.De] would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.