Career Market

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of relational affordances and the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL for instance were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, 프라그마틱 추천 무료게임, click through the following document, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (visit Bookmarkbooth) L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other, were then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 in either their L1 or 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 disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. Furthermore it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies to teach and test korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to investigate a particular subject. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions 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 provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.