• 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 relationship advantages they were able to draw from were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor 프라그마틱 무료스핀 프라그마틱 정품 사이트인증 (Read Webpage) (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, 프라그마틱 무료체험 프라그마틱 슬롯 팁 무료체험 (longshots.Wiki) it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. Furthermore, the DCT can be biased and may result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to alter the social variables that are relevant to politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to examine a variety of issues such as politeness, turn taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific linguistic criteria, such as design and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not always precise and could misrepresent how ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료체험 conventionally indirect request forms and made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide 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, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analysed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to a lack of understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms while in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of 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 variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were aware of their practical resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational advantages. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends might perceive 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-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop 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 investigative strategy that uses participant-centered, in-depth studies to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources, such as documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a general 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 that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached level four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their third or second year at university and hoped to attain level six on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and she therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.