• 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 relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local 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 its disadvantages. For instance the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for 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 to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are usually designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criterion are intuitive and based on the assumptions of the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT promoted more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 (https://wildbookmarks.com) departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners decide to not accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either 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, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends might view them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in different cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of 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 research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the subject and to place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Additionally, the participants in this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interactants and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.