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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' awareness and capacity to draw on relational affordances, as well as the learner-internal aspects, were crucial. The RIs from TS & ZL, for example mentioned their local professor relationship as a major factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article examines all local research on Korean published until 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The discourse completion test is a popular tool in the field of pragmatic research. It has many advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT for instance, does not take into account individual and cultural differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. Therefore, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or 프라그마틱 카지노 프라그마틱 정품 사이트확인 (Active Bookmarks wrote in a blog post) for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful tool for analyzing the relationship between prosody, information structure, and non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter social variables related to politeness is a plus. This feature can be used to study the role of prosody in different 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 analyze many issues, such as politeness, turn-taking, and lexical choices. It can be used to evaluate the phonological complexity of learners in their speech.

Recent research utilized the DCT as a tool to assess the ability to resist of EFL students. Participants were given various scenarios and were asked to select an appropriate response from the choices provided. The authors found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, the researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and include other data collection methods.

DCTs are typically designed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, like content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test developers. They are not necessarily correct, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interaction. This issue requires more research on alternative methods of testing refusal competence.

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

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when it comes to using 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 who participated in MQs, 프라그마틱 슬롯체험 슬롯무료; Going On this site, DCTs and RIs. They were also required to provide reflections on their opinions and refusals in RIs. The results indicated that the CLKs frequently chose to resist native Korean pragmatic norms, and their decisions were influenced by four major factors that included their personalities, multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relational advantages. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

First, the MQ data were analyzed to determine the participants' rational choices. The data were classified according to Ishihara's (2010) definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, the responses were compared with their linguistic performance in the DCTs to determine whether they reflected pragmatic resistance or not. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their decision to use pragmatic language in a particular scenario.

The findings of the MQs and DCTs were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and z-tests. It was found that the CLKs frequently used euphemistic responses such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language which led to an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results revealed that CLKs' preferences for either converging to L1 or 프라그마틱 슬롯 dissociating from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. For instance, in Situations 3 and 12 the CLKs favored to diverge from both L1 and L2 pragmatic norms while in Situation 14 they preferred converging to L1 norms.

The RIs revealed that CLKs knew about their logical resistance to every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-toone within two days after the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two coders who were independent and then coded. The coding process was iterative and involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results were then compared to the original RI transcripts, giving an indication of how well the RIs were able to capture the fundamental behaviors.

Interviews with Refusal

The central problem in the field of pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners refuse to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study attempted to answer this question employing a range of experimental tools, such as DCTs, MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2 levels. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT scenario.

The results showed that CLKs on average, did not conform 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 were similar to native speakers. They were also aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their choices to learner-internal aspects such as their personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life experiences. They also referred external factors, such as relational affordances. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated an easier performance with respect to the linguistic and intercultural standards of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences that they might be subject to if they violated their local social norms. They were worried that their local friends might perceive them as "foreigners" and believe that they are incompetent. This worry was similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers pragmatic norms aren't the norm for Korean learners. They may still be useful as a model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the applicability of these tests in various cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better understand the impact of different cultures on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of students in L2. This will also help educators create better methods for teaching and testing Korean pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor at Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based out of Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is an investigative strategy that employs participant-centered, in-depth investigations to investigate a particular subject. This method utilizes multiple data sources like interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to examine specific or complicated topics that are difficult for other methods to measure.

In a case study, the first step is to define the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help determine which aspects of the subject matter are essential for investigation and which ones could be left out. It is also helpful to study the literature that is relevant to the subject to gain a greater knowledge of the subject and place the case study within a wider theoretical framework.

This study was conducted on an open source platform, the KMMLU leaderboard [50] and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of this experiment revealed that L2 Korean learners were extremely dependent on the influence of native models. They were more likely to select incorrect answer options that were literal interpretations of prompts, thereby ignoring the correct pragmatic inference. They also showed an unnatural tendency to add their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further reducing the quality of their responses.

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

The interviewees were presented two situations, each involving an imaginary interaction with their interlocutors and were asked to choose one of the following strategies when making a request. They were then asked to provide the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatism to their personalities. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and therefore refused to ask about her interactant's well-being with the burden of a job, even though she believed that native Koreans would ask.