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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to draw on relational affordances as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance the RIs of TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as an important factor in their pragmatic choice to avoid expressing criticism of the strictness of a professor (see the second example).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on pragmatic important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests

The test for discourse completion is a commonly used tool in pragmatic research. It has many advantages however, it also has some disadvantages. For example it is that the DCT is unable to account for the cultural and individual variations in communication. The DCT can also be biased and can lead to overgeneralizations. It is important to carefully analyze the data before being used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a valuable tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability to use two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can be used to study the impact of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field linguistics, DCT is among the most effective tools used to study the behavior of communication learners. It can be used to study a variety of issues that include politeness, turn-taking, and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate phonological complexity in learners speaking.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the skills of refusal among EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and asked to choose the appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures, including a questionnaire and video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be employed with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs can be designed using specific requirements for linguistics, such as the form and content. These criteria are intuitive and based on the assumptions of test developers. They may not be accurate and may misrepresent how ELF learners respond to requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests made by students via email with those gathered from an oral DCT. The results revealed that the DCT encouraged more direct and traditionally indirect request forms and 프라그마틱 게임 무료체험 (https://www.google.Co.cr) made a less frequent use of hints than email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' decisions regarding their use of Korean by using a range of experimental tools, such as Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs), metapragmatic questionnaires, and Refusal Interviews (RIs). Participants were 46 CLKs at the upper-intermediate level who responded to MQs, DCTs, and RIs. They were also asked to provide reflections on their assessments and 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 슬롯 환수율 (just click the following webpage) refusals in RIs. The results revealed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, 프라그마틱 정품 사이트 and their choices were influenced by four primary factors such as their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing lives, and their relational benefits. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data were examined to identify the participants' rational choices. The data were categorized according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the selections were matched with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine if they were a reflection of pragmatic resistance or not. Interviewees also had to explain the reasons for choosing the pragmatic approach in certain situations.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently resorted to the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This was likely due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which resulted in an inadequate knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preference for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms differed based on the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs would prefer to diverge from both L1 and pragmatic norms whereas in Situation 14, they favored converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants having completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, then coded by two coders who were independent. The coders worked in an iterative manner by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The results of the coding process are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine whether they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Interviews with Refusal

One of the major questions in pragmatic research is why learners choose to resist native-speaker pragmatic norms. Recent research has attempted to answer this question by using various experimental tools, including DCTs MQs and RIs. The participants comprised 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. Participants were required to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or their L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were asked to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that on average, the CLKs resisted native-speaker pragmatic norms in more than 40% of their answers. They did so even though they could create patterns that resembled native ones. They were also aware of their pragmatism resistance. They attributed their choice to learner-internal variables such as their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, like relationship benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance in relation to the intercultural and linguistic norms of their university.

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

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They may remain useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the usefulness of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better comprehend how different environments may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 students in the classroom and beyond. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's 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 uses participant-centered, in-depth investigations to explore a specific subject. This method makes use of various sources of data, such as documents, interviews, and observations to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study complicated or unique topics that are difficult for other methods to assess.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define the subject and the goals 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 understanding of the subject and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

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 study revealed that L2 Korean students were particularly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an inclination to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

Moreover, the participants of this case study were primarily L2 Korean learners who had achieved level 4 on the Test of Proficiency in Korean (TOPIK) at their second or third year at university, and were aiming to reach level 6 for their next test. They were asked to respond to questions regarding their WTC/SPCC and comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

Interviewees were presented with two hypothetical situations which involved interactions with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the strategies below to use when making an offer. They were then asked to provide the reasons behind their decision. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore was reluctant to inquire about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do this.