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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example, cited their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is one of the most effective tools for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For 프라그마틱 플레이 instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 프라그마틱 정품 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked 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 reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, 프라그마틱 정품 on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and 프라그마틱 사이트 which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.