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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could cause overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables that affect politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like videos or questionnaires. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation 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 major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to move toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 무료 their L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they could be subjected to if they strayed from their local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for investigation and which ones can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that the L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, 프라그마틱 이미지 TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 메타 (simply click the up coming website page) and so she was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.