• 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 their own resistance to change and the social ties they could draw on were crucial. RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on the practical fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot take into account cultural and personal variations in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and could lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers to study the role played by prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate many issues, such as the manner of speaking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 무료슬롯, https://Www.eediscuss.Com/, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include 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 based upon the assumptions of test designers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on different methods of assessing refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with those from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean using a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their identities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for 프라그마틱 슬롯 추천 L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, which led to an inadequate understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based 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 a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders independent of each other who then coded them. The coding process was iterative by the coders, re-reading and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 무료체험 메타 (her explanation) discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine if they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The key 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 using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or their L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked 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 this 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 personality and multilingual identities. They also referred to external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example, how their relations with their professors enabled them to function more easily in terms of the linguistic and social norms at their university.

However, the interviewees also expressed concern about the social pressures and consequences they could face if they flouted their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will enable them to better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research strategy that utilizes deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of investigation can be used to analyze unique or complex issues that are difficult to other methods to assess.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject as well as the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer options, which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency of adding their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. TS for instance said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a heavy work load, even though she thought native Koreans would.