• 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 the need to be pragmatic and the social ties they could draw on were important. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for 프라그마틱 홈페이지 their pragmatic decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is one of the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized an DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choices of behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 무료; click the up coming document, Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. In Situations 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 revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners decide to rescind the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs and 프라그마틱 체험 정품 확인법, leftbookmarks.com official blog, RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms 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 actions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic expectations of their university.

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

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultures on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which are best left out. It is also beneficial to read the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to select wrong answer choices that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

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

The interviewees were presented with two scenarios, each of which involved an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making an inquiry. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.