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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal factors, CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both cited their local professor relationships as a major reason for them to choose to avoid expressing criticism of an uncompromising professor (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some disadvantages. The DCT for instance, is unable to account for cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or evaluation.

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 to manipulate social variables that affect politeness in two or more steps can be a strength. This characteristic can be utilized to study the impact of prosody in different cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most useful tools to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choice. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners' speech.

Recent research has used an DCT as an instrument to test the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from and then asked to choose the appropriate response. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be developed using specific linguistic criteria, such as the form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and are based on the assumptions of the test developers. They aren't always accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue requires further research on alternative methods of assessing refusal ability.

In a recent research study, DCT responses to student inquiries via email were compared with the responses from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT promoted more direct and traditionally form-based requests and made a less frequent use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners making 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 who participated in MQs, DCTs and 라이브 카지노 RIs. They were also asked to consider their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs often resisted native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: their identities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was first analyzed to identify the participants' actual choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared their selections with their linguistic performance on DCTs in order to determine if they are indicative of a pragmatic resistance. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing a pragmatic behavior in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 z-tests were examined using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs often resorted to euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This is likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to an insufficient understanding of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for 프라그마틱 이미지 converging to L1 norms or dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For example, in Situation 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one basis within two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders and then coded. The coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then compared with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

The key issue in research on pragmatics is: Why do some learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question employing a variety of research tools, such as DCTs, MQs, and RIs. Participants included 46 CLKs and 44 CNSs from five Korean Universities. Participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. Then, they were invited to a RI where they were asked to think about their responses to the DCT situations.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform to the pragmatic norms of native speakers in more than 40 percent of their responses. They did this even though they could produce native-like patterns. In addition, 프라그마틱 데모 they were aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and 프라그마틱 정품확인방법 personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relational affordances. They also discussed, for instance how their relations with their professors enabled them to perform more comfortably in terms of the cultural and linguistic norms at their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subjected to if they strayed from their social norms. They were concerned that their native counterparts might view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native-speaker pragmatic norms are no longer the default preference of Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. But it would be prudent for future researchers to reassess their applicability in specific situations and in various contexts. This will help them better understand how different cultural environments can affect the pragmatic behavior of students in the classroom and beyond. This will also aid educators develop better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi, principal advisor at Stratways Group in Seoul, is a geopolitical risks consultancy.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative technique that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources including documents, interviews, and observations, to prove its findings. This type of investigation can be used to analyze complicated or unique issues that are difficult to other methods to measure.

In a case study the first step is to define the subject and the purpose of the study. This will help you determine which aspects of the topic should be studied and which aspects can be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the topic to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case within a wider theoretical framework.

This case study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its Korean-specific benchmarks, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of the prompts, which were not based on the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed a distinct tendency to add their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This also lowered the quality of their answers.

Furthermore, the participants of this case study were L2 Korean learners who had reached level 4 in the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at the end of their second or third year of university and were aiming for level 6 in their next attempt. They were questioned about their WTC/SPCC, their pragmatic awareness and understanding and their knowledge of the world.

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making demands. The interviewees were then asked to justify their decision. Most of the participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and therefore did not want to inquire about her interactant's well-being with an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.