• 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 learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to 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 useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criterion are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and 프라그마틱 무료체험 teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 추천 무료 프라그마틱체험 메타 (https://www.98e.fun/space-uid-8879038.html) CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, 무료 프라그마틱 and then coded by two independent coders. The code was re-coded repeatedly, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised 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. 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 on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and punishments they could be subject to if they violated their social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are unintelligent. This is similar to the concerns 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 remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. Moreover, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies to teach and test the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also useful to read the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case 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 susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.