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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relationship advantages they were able to draw from were significant. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major reason for them to choose to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its drawbacks. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Furthermore, the DCT is susceptible to bias 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 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 plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

A recent study utilized a DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further studies of alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect requests and utilized less hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal responses in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and 프라그마틱 데모 무료체험 메타 (More Information and facts) their relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. The interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of experience with the target language which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded 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 evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

A key question of pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various experiments, 프라그마틱 사이트 무료체험 슬롯버프 (Minecraftcommand.science) including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were asked to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were not followed. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand believe that they are unintelligent. This concern was 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 could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data like interviews, observations, and documents, to confirm its findings. This kind of research 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 as well as the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly susceptible to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 on their next attempt. They were asked to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.