자유게시판

• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. Researchers from TS and ZL, for example were able to cite their relationship with their local professor as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticism of a strict professor (see examples 2).

This article reviews all local practical research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on the most important pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but also some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, cannot account cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. It is essential to analyze it carefully before being used for research or evaluation.

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 use two or more stages to influence social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics the DCT has emerged as one of the most significant instruments for analyzing learners' behaviors in communication. It can be used to study numerous issues, like politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners in their speech.

A recent study used a DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given an array of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are often designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criterion are intuitive and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic decisions regarding their use of Korean through a variety of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) as well as metapragmatic questionnaires and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked for reflections on their evaluations and their refusals to participate in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs are more likely to reject native Korean pragmatism norms. Their choices were influenced by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life experiences and their relationship affordances. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a specific scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analysed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic terms such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target languages, leading to an insufficient understanding of korean pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 홈페이지 사이트 - Pattern-wiki.Win, 12, the CLKs preferred to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms, whereas in Situation 14 they favored a convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that the CLKs were aware their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants had completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders from different companies. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

A key question of pragmatic research is why learners are hesitant to adhere to native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question with a variety of experiments, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants were comprised of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. They were asked to perform the DCTs in their first language and complete the MQs either in their L1 or 프라그마틱 순위 L2. Then, they were invited to attend a RI where they were asked consider their responses to the DCT situations.

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 even though they could produce native-like patterns. They were also conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal factors like their personalities and multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 advantages. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concern about the social pressures and penalties they could be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts may view them as "foreignersand believe that they are ignorant. This concern was similar in nature to that expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the effects of different cultural environments on the classroom behavior and interactions of students in L2. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a method that focuses on intensive, participant-centered research to study a specific subject. It is a method that makes use of numerous sources of data to support the findings, including interviews and observations, documents, and artifacts. This kind of research is ideal for studying complicated or unique subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject as well as the objectives of the study. This will help determine what aspects of the subject matter are essential for research and which could be left out. It is also beneficial to review the existing literature to gain a better understanding of the subject. It will also help place the case in a wider theoretical context.

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 the study showed that L2 Korean learners were highly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from a precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This lowered the quality of their responses.

The participants of this study were L2 Korean students who had attained 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 to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as pragmatic awareness and comprehension.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their co-workers and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. Interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore did not want to inquire about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would do this.