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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for 프라그마틱 순위 슈가러쉬 - Https://justpin.date - more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries 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 utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 슬롯 체험 슬롯무료 (http://Tawassol.univ-tebessa.Dz) teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices 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 choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results 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 could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. They outlined, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners 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 at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations, to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which can be omitted. It is also useful to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

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

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.