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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and 프라그마틱 게임 the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The researchers found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned 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, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always correct, 프라그마틱 순위 게임; https://Salvadori585ite8.ktwiki.Com/, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants were comprised of 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 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted 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 also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (edmundy558xyx0.anchor-blog.com) penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This worry was similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were 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 pragmatism to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.