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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances and learning-internal factors, were significant. RIs from TS & ZL, for example were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their pragmatic decision to avoid criticizing a strict professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It cannot account cultural and individual variations. Furthermore the DCT is susceptible to bias and may lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to study numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to evaluate EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often designed 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 developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for more research into alternative methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student requests via email were compared to the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study explored Chinese learners' choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors: their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In Situations 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 showed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within a period of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, 프라그마틱 환수율 사이트 (source web page) and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key question in pragmatic research is: why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, 프라그마틱 슬롯 and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. In addition, 프라그마틱 they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal aspects such as their identities, personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life experiences. They also mentioned external factors such as relational affordances. They described, for example how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures or penalties they could be subject to in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were unintelligent. This concern was similar to the concerns voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their applicability in specific situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultures on the pragmatic behavior and classroom interactions of L2 students. This will also aid educators create 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 a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method uses numerous sources of information like documents, interviews, and observations to prove its findings. This kind of research is useful for examining complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define the subject as well as the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic should be studied and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 슬롯 사이트; these details, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations involving an interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making a demand. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. TS, for example, claimed that she was difficult to approach and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they were working at a high rate, even though she thought native Koreans would.