클잼 로고

• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, 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 for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is one of the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used an DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 무료체험 무료게임 (Https://www.google.com.Pe/url?q=https://moparwiki.Win/wiki/Post:10_Things_We_Hate_About_Pragmatic_Image) instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that were similar to native speakers. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face when their social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

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 showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. TS for instance, 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 despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.