• 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 pragmatic resistance and the social ties they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationship with their local professor as a key factor in their rational decision to avoid criticising a strict prof (see examples 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean until 2020. It focuses on the practical important topics such as:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in research that is based on pragmatic principles. It has numerous advantages but it also has a few disadvantages. The DCT is one example. It is unable to account for cultural and individual variations. The DCT can also be biased and result in overgeneralizations. As a result, it is important to analyze it carefully before it is used for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations the DCT is a valuable tool to investigate the connection between prosody, information structure and non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to influence the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This feature can help researchers to study the role played by prosody in communicating across cultural contexts, which is a major issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT has become one of the primary tools for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to analyze numerous issues, like manner of speaking, turn-taking, and the use of lexical terms. It can also be used to assess the phonological complexity of the learners their speech.

A recent study employed a DCT to test EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were given a list of scenarios and were required to choose a suitable response from the choices provided. The authors concluded that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures that included a questionnaire as well as video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT must be employed with caution. They also recommended using other methods for data collection.

DCTs are typically created with specific linguistic requirements in mind, such as content and form. These criteria are based on intuition and is based on the assumptions made by the test designers. They may not be precise and could misrepresent the way ELF learners actually reject requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for further research on different methods of assessing the ability to refuse.

A recent study compared DCT responses to requests submitted by students via email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs favored more direct and conventionally-indirect requests and utilized hints less than email data.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed a variety of experimental tools including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of intermediate or higher ability who responded to DCTs and MQs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and refusal performance in RIs. The results showed that CLKs frequently chose to defy native Korean pragmatic norms. Their choices were influenced primarily by four factors: their personalities and multilingual identities, their current life experiences, as well as their relational affordances. These findings have implications for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

The MQ data was analyzed first to determine the participants' choices in practice. The data was categorized according Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance on the DCTs to determine if they were indicative of a pragmatic resistance. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice of pragmatic behavior in a given scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Z tests. The CLKs were found employ euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" or "thank you". This is likely due to their lack experience with the target languages, 프라그마틱 홈페이지 프라그마틱 슬롯 하는법 하는법 (https://championsleage.review/wiki/Why_Nobody_Cares_About_Free_Pragmatic) which led to an insufficient knowledge of korean's pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and 2 norms or to move towards L1 varied depending on the DCT circumstances. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1pragmatic norms and L2 norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted in a one-to-one manner within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two coders from different companies. The coders worked in an iterative manner and 프라그마틱 순위 involved the coders reading and discussing each transcript. The results of coding are compared with the original RI transcripts to determine if they accurately portrayed the underlying behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The central question in pragmatic research is: Why do certain learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? A recent study sought to answer this question by employing a range of experimental instruments, 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 native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. They were then invited to an RI where they were required to think about and discuss their responses to each DCT situation.

The results showed that CLKs, on average, did not adhere to the patterns of native speakers in more than 40% of their responses. They did this even though they were able to create patterns that were similar to natives. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their resistance to learner-internal factors like their identities and personalities as well as multilingual identities. They also mentioned external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to an easier performance in regards to the intercultural and linguistic standards of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or 프라그마틱 슬롯버프 [Kingranks.Com] penalties they could be subject to if their local social norms were violated. They were worried that their native friends may view them as "foreignersand consider them unintelligent. This concern was similar in nature to the one expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These results suggest that native-speaker practical norms are no longer the norm for Korean learners. They may still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. However, it is prudent for future researchers to reassess their usefulness in particular situations and in various cultural contexts. This will help them better understand the effect of different cultural environments on the behavior of students and classroom interactions of L2 students. Additionally, this will help educators create more effective methods for teaching and testing the korea's pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consulting firm based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that employs deep, participatory investigations to study a specific subject. This method utilizes numerous sources of information, such as interviews, observations, and documents to confirm its findings. This kind of research can be used to analyze specific or complicated issues that are difficult to other methods of measuring.

In a case study, the first step is to clearly define both the subject and the objectives of the study. This will help you determine what aspects of the subject are important to investigate and which ones can be skipped. It is also beneficial to review existing literature related to the subject to gain a greater understanding of the topic and to place the case study within a larger theoretical context.

This study was based on an open source platform such as the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its specific benchmarks for Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the study showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They were more likely to pick incorrect answer choices which were literal interpretations. This was a deviance from the correct pragmatic inference. They also exhibited an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, which further hampered their response quality.

Moreover, the participants of this study were L2 Korean learners who had attained 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 required to answer questions about their WTC/SPCC as well as comprehension and pragmatic awareness.

The interviewees were given two scenarios, each involving a hypothetical interaction with their co-workers and asked to choose one of the following strategies when making an inquiry. The interviewees were asked to justify their choice. Most of the participants attributed their rational opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to connect to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload, even though she believed that native Koreans would do so.