• 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, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. 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 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 the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test creators. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were matched with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance 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 coders from different companies. The coding was an iterative process in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research sought to answer this question with a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 슬롯 환수율 (you can try bookmarkfavors.com) 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

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 this even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 환수율 (mouse click the next web site) multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also referred to external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea-based 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 focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

The first step in a case study is to clearly define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.