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

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable 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 could be a benefit. This can assist researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They are not always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and 프라그마틱 순위 환수율 (80.82.64.206) recorded by two coders independent of each other and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research attempted to answer this question using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and 프라그마틱 RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and punishments that they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their local friends might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it is advisable for future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in different cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also assist educators to create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method makes use of numerous sources of information like interviews, observations and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential to study and which are best left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They tended to select wrong answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in 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 year of university and were hoping to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and 무료 프라그마틱 정품인증 (Https://Www.Google.Fm/) asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.