• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their pragmatic choice to not criticize a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to assess EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 정품인증 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천버프 (see this here) we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely 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' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 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 convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in 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 scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational affordances. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 a method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information including interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones are best left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and to place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.