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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

CLKs' understanding and ability to make use of relational affordances, as well as learner-internal elements, were important. For instance, RIs from TS and ZL both have cited their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to not criticize a strict professor (see the example 2).

This article reviews all locally published pragmatic research on Korean up to 2020. It focuses on core pragmatic topics including:

Discourse Construction Tests (DCTs)

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is a widely used instrument in pragmatic research. It has many advantages, but it also has some drawbacks. The DCT, for example, cannot account cultural and individual differences. The DCT can also be biased and lead to overgeneralizations. As a result, it must be carefully analyzed prior to using it for research or for assessment purposes.

Despite its limitations, the DCT is a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. Its ability in two or more stages to alter the social variables that are related to politeness could be a benefit. This ability can be used to study the role of prosody in various cultural contexts.

In the field of linguistics DCT is among the most effective tools used for analyzing communication behaviors of learners. It can be used to investigate various aspects such as the manner of speaking, turn taking and lexical selection. It can be used to evaluate the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

Recent research utilized a DCT as a tool to assess the refusal skills of EFL students. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other refusal measures such as a questionnaire or video recordings. The researchers cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution. They also recommended using other methods of data collection.

DCTs are often developed with specific linguistic criteria in mind, such as the content and the form. These criteria are based on intuition and 프라그마틱 플레이 based on the assumptions of test designers. They are not necessarily precise, and they could misrepresent the way that ELF learners actually reject requests in actual interactions. This issue calls for more research into different methods to assess the ability to refuse.

A recent study examined DCT responses to requests made by students via email versus the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that DCTs preferred 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 used a variety of experimental tools such as Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and 프라그마틱 Refusal Interviews. 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 indicated that the CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four major factors: 프라그마틱 카지노 their personalities, their multilingual identities, ongoing life histories, and relationship affordances. These findings have pedagogical implications for L2 Korean assessment.

The MQ data was analyzed in order to identify the participants' actual choices. The data was classified according to Ishihara (2010)'s definition of pragmatic resistance. Then, we compared the choices with their linguistic performance using DCTs in order to determine if they were a sign of pragmatic resistance. Additionally, the participants were asked to explain their choice of pragmatic behavior in a particular scenario.

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analysed using descriptive statistics and Z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently used the use of euphemistic phrases such as "sorry" and "thank you." This could be due to their lack of familiarity with the target language, which led to a lack of knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that the CLKs' preferences for converging to L1 or departing from both L1 as well as L2 pragmatic norms varied by the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, 무료슬롯 프라그마틱 while in Situation 14, CLKs preferred convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs also revealed the CLKs were aware their pragmatic resistance in each DCT situation. RIs were conducted on a one-to-one basis in the space of two days of participants completing the MQs. The RIs were recorded and transcribed, and then coded by two independent coders. Coding was an iterative process, in which the coders discussed and read each transcript. The coding results are then evaluated against the original RI transcripts to determine if they reflected the actual behavior.

Refusal Interviews (RIs)

One of the most important questions in pragmatic research is why learners decide to rescind pragmatic norms that native speakers use. A recent study sought to answer this question employing a range of experimental instruments, including DCTs, MQs, and RIs. The participants consisted of 46 CLKs, 44 CNSs, and 45 KNSs from five Korean universities. The participants were asked to complete the DCTs and MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to a RI where they were required to reflect on their responses to the DCT situations.

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 even though they could produce native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatic resistance. They attributed their decision to learner-internal variables such as their personalities and multilingual identities. They also spoke of external factors, such as relationships and benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors facilitated a more relaxed performance with respect to the intercultural and linguistic rules of their university.

The interviewees expressed their concern about the social pressures or consequences they might face in the event that their local social norms were violated. They were concerned that their native interlocutors may view them as "foreignersand consider them ignorant. This was a concern similar to those voiced by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the norm for Korean learners. They could still be a useful model for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reconsider the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will help them better understand the effects of different cultural contexts on the classroom behavior and interactions of students from L2. Moreover, 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 relies on participant-centered, deep studies to study a specific subject. This method uses various sources of data like interviews, observations and documents, to prove its findings. This type of investigation is ideal for studying unique or complex subjects that are difficult to measure using other methods.

The first step in conducting a case study is to define the subject and the goals of the study. This will allow you to identify which aspects of the topic must be investigated and which ones can be skipped. It is also helpful to study the literature to gain a better understanding of the subject and place the case in a wider theoretical context.

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 study showed 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 the prompts, which were not based on precise pragmatic inference. They also showed a strong tendency to include their own words or "garbage" to their responses. This further reduced the quality of their answers.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios that involved interaction with their interlocutors and asked to choose one of the strategies listed below to use when making demands. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. The majority of participants attributed their pragmatist opposition to their personality. For instance, TS claimed that she was difficult to talk to, and so she was reluctant to inquire about the health of her interlocutors despite having an intense workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would ask.