• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' understanding of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they could draw on were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important reason for them to choose to avoid criticising an uncompromising professor (see example 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on key pragmatic issues such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, does not take into account individual and cultural variations. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT can be a useful tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate the social variables that are relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a strength. This ability can aid researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a major challenge in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to assess phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study utilized the DCT to test EFL students' ability to resist. The participants were given a list of scenarios and required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more efficient than other methods of refusal such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are usually created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test creators. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent the way ELF learners actually respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires more research into alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate who participated in DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their choices were influenced by four main factors such as their personalities, multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

First, 프라그마틱 슬롯 the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 we compared their choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to converge towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In Situations 3 and 12 CLKs preferred diverging from both L1- and 프라그마틱 사이트 (Metooo.io) L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Interviews for refusal

The most important question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or their 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, on average, 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 정품인증 (Dokuwiki.Stream) the CLKs rejected the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their answers. They did this even when they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decision to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relational benefits. They outlined, for instance, how their interactions with their professors helped them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and 프라그마틱 공식홈페이지 social standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they might face if their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native counterparts 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 not the norm for Korean learners. They could remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor for Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to investigate a specific topic. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to support the findings, including interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining specific or complex subjects that are difficult to quantify with other methods.

The first step in the case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to determine which aspects of the subject are important for research and which are best left out. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a general understanding of the subject and place the case in a larger theoretical context.

This case study was built on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, deviating from accurate pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their answers.

The participants in this study were all L2 Korean students who had reached the level of four in the Test of Proficiency in Korean TOPIK in their second or third year at university and hoped to achieve level six on their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios involving an interaction with their counterparts and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. TS, for example said 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 believed native Koreans would.