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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were significant. Researchers from TS & ZL for instance mentioned their local professor relationship as the primary reason for their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, 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 many strengths however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other data collection methods.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always correct, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs with intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to reflect on their evaluation and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatism norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were compared to their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine whether they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs preferred a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process were compared to the original RI transcripts, 프라그마틱 플레이 라이브 카지노; Easiestbookmarks.Com, which gave an indication of how the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behavior.

Refusal Interviews

A key question of pragmatic research is why some learners are hesitant to adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question using a variety of experimental instruments, including DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. 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 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 decision to learner-internal factors such as their personality and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship advantages. For instance, they outlined how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also assist educators to develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs in-depth, participant-centered investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

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 crucial to study and which can be omitted. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the situation within a larger theoretical framework.

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 this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer choices, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.