• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to the learner-internal aspects CLKs' awareness of the need to be pragmatic and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance the RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a significant factor in their decision to avoid criticising a strict professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test (DCT) is an instrument that is widely used in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has its disadvantages. The DCT, for example, is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. Additionally it is also the case that the DCT can be biased and may cause overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed before using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study 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 can be a benefit. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across different cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the most significant instruments for 프라그마틱 무료슬롯 무료 (socialdummies.com) analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to study various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners' speech.

Recent research used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and were then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or 프라그마틱 정품인증 슬롯 (mouse click the up coming website page) video recordings. However, the researchers warned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate, and they may be misleading about the way ELF learners actually resist requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

In a recent study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared to the responses of an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners their pragmatic choices when they use Korean. It used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their decisions were influenced primarily by four factors such as their personality and multilingual identities, their current life experiences as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of resistance to pragmatics. 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 resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 norms or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis within two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding process was iterative, with the coders re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process were evaluated against the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how the RIs accurately portrayed the core behaviors.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research has attempted to answer this question using various 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 either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI, where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not follow the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they could produce patterns that closely resembled natives. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship affordances. They described, for example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the linguistic and social expectations of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their native interactants might consider them "foreigners" and believe they are incompetent. This is similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency testing. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultural contexts on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students from L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. It is a method that uses multiple data sources to back up 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 clearly define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a better knowledge of the subject and put the issue within a larger theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that L2 Korean learners were highly vulnerable to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answers that were literal interpretations of prompts, deviating from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to include their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

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

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personality. TS, for example stated that she was difficult to talk to and refused to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a heavy work load, even though she believed native Koreans would.