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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test developers. They aren't always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, 프라그마틱 환수율 프라그마틱 정품인증 (go source) DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 체험 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 정품 무료 - look at these guys, teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted 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 pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They also discussed, for instance how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally it will assist educators to develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and would not ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.