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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can result in overgeneralizations. This is why it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

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 related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the options provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, 프라그마틱 슬롯 such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study, 프라그마틱 무료 DCT responses to student inquiries 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 made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 사이트 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료스핀 (visit our website) the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. Coding was an iterative process in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs 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 their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors like relational advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of various sources of data including interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible 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 had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.