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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see example 2).

This article examines all local pragmatic research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a common tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual differences. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 more steps can be a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT is now one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to determine the phonological complexity of the learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or questionnaires. Researchers warned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs can be designed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus those obtained from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of tools that were tested, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and 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 performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to defy native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced by four factors such as their personality and 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 정품 사이트, Http://school27vkad.ru/, multilingual identities, their current life histories as well as their relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

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

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. In the scenarios 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question by employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs, and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also mentioned external factors like relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators improve their methods of 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 strategy that utilizes in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations and documents, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze unique or complex subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a broad understanding of the topic and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based upon 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 the study revealed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

Additionally, the participants in this case study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were hoping to achieve level 6 on their next attempt. They were required to answer questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 (https://sosnovoborsk1.websender.ru) each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite her belief that native Koreans would ask.