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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For example the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more study on alternative methods for testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools such as 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 opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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 selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 정품 확인법 무료 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험버프 (mozillabd.Science) z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 even though they could create native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are 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 no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to explore a particular subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯버프 artifacts. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to get along with and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.