• 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 their own resistance to change and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were important. RIs from TS & ZL for instance, cited their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Furthermore it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. The participants were given a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's 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 circumstances. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either 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, 프라그마틱 데모 - http://www.Kaseisyoji.Com/home.php?mod=space&uid=1090816 - on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. They also discussed, for instance, how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if they flouted their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 무료 (click through the up coming website page) HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had an unnatural tendency to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.