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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were significant. RIs from TS and ZL, for example, cited their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It does not take into account individual and cultural variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and could result in overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for 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 manipulate social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They may not be exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods to assess refusal ability.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 transcribed, then coded by two independent coders. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 which gave an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews

The key problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship affordances. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and 프라그마틱 무료 penalties they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors 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 results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to help support the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second university year and were aiming to attain level six on their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their interactants and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.