클잼 로고

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 (please click the following page) cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

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

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 analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 무료체험 based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

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

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and believe that they are not intelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.