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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL for instance, cited their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 환수율 [Suggested Internet site] the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or 프라그마틱 추천 assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be 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 could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than 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, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to defy native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' practical choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results 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 could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to pragmatic norms that native speakers use. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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 CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors helped facilitate an easier performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This is similar to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They may still be 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 various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean 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 in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a general understanding 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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.