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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both mentioned their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to not criticize an uncompromising professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean 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 numerous advantages, but it also has a few drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. This is why it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a useful tool to investigate the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers understand the role of prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects that include politeness, turn taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to assess the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research has used the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. The participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal, such as a questionnaire or video recordings. Researchers cautioned, however, that the DCT should be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate, and they may incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually refuse requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research on alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that DCTs favored more direct and 프라그마틱 무료스핀 traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 환수율 used more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used various experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate ability who provided responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs are more likely to resist native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing lives and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their choices made by the participants with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees were also required to explain why they chose the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This could be due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of the korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to be more convergent toward L1 differed based on the DCT situations. In the scenarios 3 and 12, 프라그마틱 데모 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. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were recorded and transcribed by two coders who were independent and then coded. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

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

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 could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their local friends might consider them "foreigners" and think they are unintelligent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the norm for 프라그마틱 정품확인 Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. But it is advisable for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will enable them to better comprehend how different environments could affect the practical behavior of learners in the classroom and beyond. Moreover, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to investigate a specific topic. This method makes use of numerous sources of information including interviews, observations, and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is useful when analyzing 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 and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to read the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject. It will also help put the issue in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers which were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in 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 asked questions about their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to employ when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personalities. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they were working at a high rate despite the fact that she thought native Koreans would.