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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is widely used in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has many strengths, but it also has its disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally, the DCT is prone to bias and may result in overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various aspects that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study used an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like videos or questionnaires. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test designers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more study on alternative methods for assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including 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 to consider their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed first to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to justify their choices of behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that 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' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or their 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 on average, the CLKs resisted the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. They were also aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, 무료 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 플레이 (hikvisiondb.Webcam) such as relationships and advantages. For example, 무료 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 (simply click for source) they described how their relationships with professors helped facilitate more relaxed performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods to teach and test 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 investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This 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 the L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 for their next test. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.