• 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. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to manipulate social variables that affect politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 무료 슬롯 무료체험 슬롯버프 (https://pragmatickr65318.blogitright.com/29954930/10-apps-that-can-help-you-control-your-pragmatic-casino) the DCT is now one of the most important instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 순위 and lexical choice. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be 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 data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific language requirements, like the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent how 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 made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' actual choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-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 central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and 프라그마틱 불법 multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native friends would consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the default preference for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. 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, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.