• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, 프라그마틱 환수율 were important. RIs from TS and ZL for instance were able to cite their local professor relationship as a key factor in their decision to stay clear of criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published practical research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical core topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used instrument in pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before it is used in research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool for investigating the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability to manipulate social variables that affect the manner of speaking in two or more steps can be a plus. This feature can be used to study the effect of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the choices made in lexical use. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners their speech.

Recent research used the DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a list of scenarios and were asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The researchers found the DCT to be more effective than other methods for refusing like videos or 프라그마틱 게임 questionnaires. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are intuitive and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further studies of different methods of assessing refusal ability.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using 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 assessments and refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was discovered that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases 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 the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent, were then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 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 asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs rejected native-speaker pragmatic norms in over 40% of their answers. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also referred external factors, like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they could be subject to when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interactants might think they are "foreigners" and believe they are not intelligent. This concern was similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for 슬롯 official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally it will assist educators to create more effective methods to teach and test the korea-based pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigational strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that utilizes numerous sources of data to help support the findings, such as interviews or observations, documents and artifacts. This kind of research can be used to analyze complicated or unique subjects that are difficult for other methods to assess.

The first step in conducting a case study is to clearly define the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which can be omitted. It is also beneficial to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was built on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] along with its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly susceptible to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answers that 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 lowered the quality of their responses.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on 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 asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to approach and would not inquire about her interlocutor's well-being when they had a lot of work, even though she believed native Koreans would.