• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationship with their local professor as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticizing a strict professor (see examples 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has numerous advantages, but also a few disadvantages. For example, the DCT cannot account for the cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully before it is used for research or assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability to manipulate social variables relevant to the manner of speaking in two or more steps could be a strength. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody across cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has become one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' behavior in communication. It can be used to examine a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to determine phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research used a DCT as tool to evaluate the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also suggested using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are intuitive and are based on the assumptions of the test designers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for further study on alternative methods for 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 showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally indirect requests and utilized more hints than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners' pragmatic choices in their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) Metapragmatic Questionnaires, Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to DCTs, MQs, and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트체험 (images.google.com.gt) RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often chose to resist native Korean norms of pragmatism. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life histories, as well as their relationships. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analysed to identify the participants' rational choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared to their linguistic performance in DCTs to determine if they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. In addition, the interviewees were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular situation.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This was probably due to their lack of experience with the target languages, which led to a lack of understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preferences to differ from L1 and L2 norms or 프라그마틱 정품인증 정품확인 (https://www.google.com.ag/url?q=https://writeablog.net/mouthcarol9/How-to-create-An-awesome-instagram-video-about-pragmatic-kr) to move towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT circumstances. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 무료체험 슬롯버프 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs showed that CLKs were aware of their practical resistance to each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days after the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs, which were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was an iterative process, in which the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. A recent study attempted to answer this question by using a variety of experimental tools, such as DCTs MQs, DCTs and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were required to complete the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to reflect on and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs disapproved of the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing lives. They also referred external factors, like relationship advantages. They also discussed, for instance, how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

The interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could face in the event that their local social norms were not followed. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand believe that 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 preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should consider reassessing the usefulness of these tests in different contexts and in particular situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Furthermore 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 investigative technique that relies on participant-centered, deep investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes various sources of data, such as interviews, observations, and documents to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods to measure.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject matter and the purpose of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also beneficial to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was based on an open-source platform, the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its benchmarks for Koreans, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study showed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations. This was a deviation from the correct pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their responses.

Furthermore, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) in their third or second year of university and were aiming for level 6 for their next test. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness, understanding perception of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. The interviewees were asked to justify their decision. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personalities. TS for instance, claimed that she was difficult to get along with and was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.