• 글쓰기
• 목록

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances and learner-internal elements, were important. Researchers from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their relationships with their local professors as the primary reason for their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The discourse completion test is a commonly used tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. Therefore, it should be analyzed carefully prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a valuable tool to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This characteristic can be utilized to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most useful tools to analyze the communication habits of learners. It can be used to examine various issues such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

Recent research has used a DCT as tool to evaluate the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were presented with an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the options provided. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more efficient than other methods of refusal like the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other types of data collection methods.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always precise, and they could incorrectly describe the way in which ELF learners actually resist requests in actual interactions. This issue requires more investigation into alternative methods of measuring refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study looked at Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered DCTs, MQs, and RIs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relationship advantages. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' pragmatic choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the selections with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs and DCTs were then examined using descriptive statistics and z-tests. The CLKs were discovered to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to a lack of knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their own pragmatism in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed by two independent coders, were then coded. The coding was an iterative process, where the coders read and discussed each transcript. The results of coding are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews for refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why some learners choose to resist the pragmatic norms of native speakers. Recent research sought to answer this question with several experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and to complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even when they were able to produce patterns that closely resembled natives. In addition, they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choices to learner-internal factors such as their personalities and identities that are multilingual, as well as ongoing life histories. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. They described, for 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 example how their relationships with their professors allowed them to perform better in terms of the cultural and linguistic standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and penalties they could be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This concern was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are not the preferred choice of Korean learners. They could still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various contexts and in particular situations. This will allow them to better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to back up the findings, such as interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is useful for examining unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the purpose of the study. This will allow you to identify what aspects of the subject should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to read the literature on to the subject to gain a broad knowledge of the subject and place the case study in a broader theoretical context.

This study was conducted on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study revealed that the L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from a precise pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

Moreover, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had attained level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, pragmatic awareness and understanding and understanding of the world.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each of which involved an imagined interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the following strategies to use when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their lack of a pragmatic response to their personality. TS, for example said she was difficult to talk to and 프라그마틱 슬롯 공식홈페이지 (79Bo.cc) was hesitant to ask about the wellbeing of her colleague when they had a lot of work, even though she thought native Koreans would.