• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for 프라그마틱 무료 them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor 프라그마틱 정품 (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This can assist 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 investigate various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated 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). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and 프라그마틱 정품 체험; maps.google.nr, RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 정품 사이트 (Instapages.Stream) instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based 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 strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.