자유게시판

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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences, CLKs' awareness of pragmatic resistance and the relational affordances they had access to were crucial. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their decision to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article reviews all local pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on pragmatic fundamental topics like:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. For instance, the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communicative behavior. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it 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 can be a strength. This ability can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the most significant tools for analyzing learners' behavior 프라그마틱 체험 게임 (www.hulkshare.Com) in communication. It can be used to study a variety of issues such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can also be used to assess the phonological difficulty of learners speaking.

A recent study employed an DCT to assess EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a set of scenarios to choose from and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers discovered that the DCT to be more effective than other refusal methods, such as the use of a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They aren't always exact and could be misleading in describing the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent study DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses of an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests, and a lesser use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study investigated Chinese learners making pragmatic choices when using Korean. It used various tools for experimentation such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions, and Refusal Interviews. The participants were 46 CLKs of upper intermediate level who answered MQs, DCTs and RIs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performances in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs often chose to reject native Korean pragmatic norms. Their decisions were influenced by four factors that included their personalities and multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories and their relationships. These findings have pedagogical consequences for L2 Korean assessment.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to identify the participants' choices in terms of their pragmatics. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the choices were compared with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they showed a pattern of resistance to pragmatics or not. The interviewees also had to explain why they chose a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and Z-tests. The CLKs were found to use euphemistic words like "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack of experience with the target languages, leading to an inadequate knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preference for converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varies according to the DCT situations. For instance, 프라그마틱 정품 in Situations 3 and 프라그마틱 슬롯무료 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 as well as L2 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 were recorded and transcribing, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coding process was iterative 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 captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

The most important issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and complete the MQs in either their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to reflect and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not adhere to the norms of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this despite the fact that they were able to create patterns that closely resembled native speakers. Furthermore, they were clearly conscious of their own pragmatism. They attributed their decisions to learner-internal factors like their personalities, multilingual identities, and ongoing life experiences. They also spoke of external factors like relational benefits. For instance, they discussed how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance in relation to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face when their social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreignersand consider them incompetent. This was a concern similar to those voiced 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 for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to revisit their usefulness in particular situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risk consulting.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to support its findings. This kind of research can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to define both the subject and the goals of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to study the literature to gain a general knowledge of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

This study was based on an open-source platform called the KMMLU Leaderboard [50] as well as its Korean-specific benchmarks HyperCLOVA X, and LDCC Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this study revealed that L2 Korean learners were particularly susceptible to the influence of native models. They were more likely to choose incorrect answer choices that were literal interpretations of prompts, which were not based on accurate pragmatic inference. They also had a strong tendency to add their own text or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year at university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC, as well as understanding and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were presented with two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies to employ when making a request. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatic resistance to their personalities. For example, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she refused to ask about the well-being of her friend with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.