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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as an important factor in their decision to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to analyze various issues, including the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

A recent study used a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, 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 evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' practical choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, 프라그마틱 이미지 (https://bookmarkshut.com/story18695216/20-tips-to-help-you-Be-better-at-slot) the participants were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The central question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range 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 required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred to external factors like relational affordances. They described, for example, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 슬롯 추천 (understanding) how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful for examining specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making an offer. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to talk to and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.