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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships and learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and 프라그마틱 추천 정품인증 (https://maps.google.gg/url?q=https://farmer-callahan.blogbright.net/this-is-the-intermediate-guide-to-slot) 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 useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various 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 study many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners' speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the options offered. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also required to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was 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 resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered 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 showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. Coding was an iterative process, 프라그마틱 정품확인 in which the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. The participants comprised 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 L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

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 even when they were able to produce patterns that resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors such as relational advantages. They also discussed, 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 concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the topic and place the case within a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that the L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.