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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to tap into the benefits of relationships, as well as learning-internal factors, were significant. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant reason for them to choose to not criticize the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and personal differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to politeness in two or more steps could be a strength. This ability can be used to study the effect of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate a variety of issues such as politeness, 프라그마틱 불법 - https://bookmarkspy.com/story19452992/13-Things-you-should-know-about-pragmatic-that-you-might-never-have-known - turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess the level of phonological sophistication in learners in their speech.

Recent research used a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (Bookmarkforce.Com) were asked to choose the appropriate response from the options offered. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further studies of different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and used hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 메타 Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. Coding was an iterative process, where the coders discussed and read each transcript. The results of the coding process were contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. 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 resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to create patterns that resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They outlined, for instance how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and cultural standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This is similar to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should reconsider the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research is ideal for studying specific or complex subjects which are difficult to assess with other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had attained level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to reach level six by their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.