• 목록
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid criticising the strictness of a professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the most important practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a common tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. For instance it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT is prone to bias and can cause overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before being 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 manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like the manner of speaking, turn-taking and lexical choices. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners' speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a variety of scenarios to choose from, and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other types of methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue requires further studies of different methods to assess refusal competence.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and conventionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using 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 level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four main factors: their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing lives, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and their relational advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' pragmatic choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of resistance to pragmatics. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to phrases like "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to differ from L1 and L2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12, CLKs preferred diverging from both L1pragmatic norms - and L2-pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their pragmatic resistance to each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and 무료 프라그마틱 정품확인 (Http://cultcalend.ru/bitrix/redirect.php?goto=https://pragmatickr.com/) recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding were compared to the original RI transcripts, which provided an indication of how well the RIs captured the underlying pragmatic behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is the reason why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred to external factors, such as relationships and advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to a more relaxed performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or penalties they could face if their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and think they are incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the default preference of Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reconsider their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will enable them to better know how different cultures can affect the pragmatic behavior 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, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. It is a method that uses various sources of information to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, 슬롯 and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are crucial for research and which could be left out. It is also helpful to read the research to gain a broad understanding of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of the prompts, thereby ignoring precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and 프라그마틱 사이트 환수율 (please click the up coming article) perception of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each involving an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and she therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.