• 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 pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published up to 2020. It focuses on key practical issues, including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths but it also has a few drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This can assist researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools to analyze learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to analyze many issues, such as the manner of speaking, turn-taking and the choices made in lexical use. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to choose the most appropriate response. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed with specific language requirements, like design and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs preferred more direct and conventionally indirect request forms and used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, including Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs with upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 and their decisions were influenced by four main factors that included their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose an atypical behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, 프라그마틱 사이트 슈가러쉬 (click the following internet site) in Situation 3 and 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders who were independent. The coding process was iterative and 프라그마틱 체험, http://Daojianchina.com, involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then contrasted with the original RI transcripts, which gave an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using several experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the patterns of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce native-like patterns. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties that they might be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were worried that their native friends might perceive them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This is similar 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 as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reconsider their relevance in specific scenarios and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

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 utilizes various sources of information to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the research to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the situation in a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the test showed that L2 Korean students were extremely vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their third or second year of university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding understanding of the world.

The interviewees were presented two scenarios, each of which involved a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and were asked to select one of the following strategies to use when making a request. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about the well-being of her friend with a heavy workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.