• 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 their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally the DCT can be biased and can cause overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the connection between prosody, information structure and 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 ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. 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 complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study used the DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. The participants were given various scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or 라이브 카지노 video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not necessarily correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices when it comes to using Korean using a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, 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 contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question with several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 프라그마틱 추천 (click here to visit ilovebookmark.com for free) 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 required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relational advantages. They described, for example, how their interactions with their professors helped them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they might face if they flouted their local social norms. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore, this will help educators develop more effective methodologies for teaching and testing korea 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to review the existing literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing their response quality.

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

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to talk to and would not inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.