• 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 significant. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example, cited 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 up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for analyzing the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability to alter social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects, including politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They are not always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of experience 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 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

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

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs, 프라그마틱 게임 and RIs. Participants comprised 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that, on average, the CLKs disapproved of native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also referred external factors, like relational advantages. They outlined, 프라그마틱 무료스핀 for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 future researchers to reconsider their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments could affect the practical behavior 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 (https://bookmarkingace.com/) of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. This method utilizes various sources of data including interviews, observations and documents to confirm its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects which are difficult to assess using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also useful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was based upon an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test revealed that L2 Korean students were extremely susceptible to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants of this study were all L2 Korean students who had achieved the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third university year and were aiming to reach level six by their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding knowledge of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to employ when making an inquiry. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS for instance stated that she was difficult to approach and was hesitant to inquire about the health of her co-worker when they were working at a high rate, even though she believed native Koreans would.