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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and ability to make use of 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 expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages but it also has its drawbacks. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and 프라그마틱 게임 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 (just click the following website) cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This can assist researchers to study the role played by 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 examine a variety of issues that include the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They may not be correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for 프라그마틱 무료스핀 순위 (Northwestu official blog) reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. The interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or diverging from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of the participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. The coding process was an iterative process, where the coders listened and discussed each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind native-speaker pragmatic norms. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 levels. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could produce patterns that resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures or penalties they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their relevance in specific scenarios and in various contexts. This will help them better understand the impact of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators improve their methods of teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to explore a particular subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful when analyzing unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the topic are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of 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, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasons behind their decision. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and refused to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.