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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' understanding of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For example, the DCT is unable to account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a benefit. This ability can aid researchers understand the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, 프라그마틱 정품 프라그마틱 무료스핀 (click the up coming site) DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to study various issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options offered. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT must be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test creators. They are not necessarily accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, 프라그마틱 데모 their ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each 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, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean 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 technique that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts. This type of investigation is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as 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 review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

The interviewees were presented 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 explain the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and therefore refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having the burden of a job despite her belief that native Koreans would do this.