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

Study of Chinese Learners' Pedagogical Choices in Korean

In addition to learner-internal influences CLKs' awareness of their own resistance to change and the relational affordances they were able to draw from were crucial. RIs from TS and ZL for instance mentioned their relationships with their local professors as a major factor in their decision to stay clear of criticising a strict prof (see the example 2).

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

Discourse Construction Tests

The Discourse Completion Test (DCT) is widely used in the field of pragmatic research. It has many strengths, but it also has its drawbacks. For example it is that the DCT cannot account for cultural and individual differences in communication. Additionally, the DCT is susceptible to bias and can result in overgeneralizations. It should be carefully analyzed before it is used for research or assessment.

Despite its limitations, the DCT can be a useful instrument to study the relationship between prosody and information structure in non-native speakers. The ability of the DCT in two or more stages to manipulate the social variables that are related to politeness can be a strength. This feature can help researchers study the role of prosody in communication across cultural contexts, a key issue in cross-cultural pragmatics.

In the field of linguistics, the DCT is now one of the primary instruments for analyzing learners' communication behaviors. It can be used to investigate various issues, including politeness, turn taking, 프라그마틱 슬롯 조작 프라그마틱 슬롯 사이트 환수율 (Recommended Webpage) and lexical choice. It can be used to determine the level of phonological sophistication in learners' speech.

A recent study employed the DCT to evaluate EFL students' refusal skills. Participants were presented with a range of scenarios to choose from, and then asked to select the most appropriate response. The researchers found that the DCT was more effective than other measures to stop people from refusing such as a questionnaire or video recordings. However, they cautioned that the DCT should be used with caution and should include other methods for collecting data.

DCTs can be designed with specific requirements for linguistics, such as form and content. These criteria are based on intuition and based upon the assumptions of test creators. They may not be precise, and they could be misleading about the way ELF learners actually refuse requests in real-world interactions. This issue calls for more investigation into alternative methods of assessing refusal competency.

A recent study has compared DCT responses to requests made by students through email with the responses gathered from an oral DCT. The results showed that the DCT was more direct and traditionally form-based requests and a lower use of hints than the email data did.

Metapragmatic Questionnaires (MQs)

This study examined Chinese learners' pragmatic choices when using Korean. It employed various tools for experimentation including Discourse Completion Tasks, metapragmatic questions and Refusal Interviews. Participants were 46 CLKs of upper-intermediate proficiency who gave responses to MQs and DCTs. They were also asked to think about their evaluations and 프라그마틱 슈가러쉬 refusal responses in RIs. The results showed that CLKs were more likely to reject native Korean pragmatic norms, and that their choices were influenced by four primary factors that included their personalities, their multilingual identities, their ongoing life histories, and relational benefits. These findings have implications for pedagogy for L2 Korean assessment and teaching.

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

The results of the MQs, DCTs and z-tests were analyzed with descriptive statistics and z tests. It was found that CLKs frequently resorted to 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 an insufficient knowledge of korea pragmatic norms. The results showed that CLKs' preference to diverge from L1 and L2 norms or to be more convergent towards L1 norms varied based on the DCT situations. In situations 3 and 12 CLKs favored diverging from both L1- and L2-pragmatic norms, while in Situation 14 CLKs favored convergence to L1 norms.

The RIs further revealed that CLKs were aware of their pragmatism in every DCT situation. The RIs were conducted one-to-one within two days of the participants completed the MQs. The RIs were transcribed and recorded by two independent coders who then coded them. The code was re-coded repeatedly by the coders, re-reading and discussing each transcript. The coding results are then contrasted with the original RI transcripts to determine how well they captured the underlying pragmatic behavior.

Refusal Interviews

The most important problem in the field of pragmatic research is: 프라그마틱 환수율 Why do some learners choose not to accept native-speaker norms? Recent research sought to answer this question using a variety of experimental tools including DCTs MQs and RIs. Participants included 44 CLKs and 46 CNSs from five Korean Universities. They were asked to complete the DCTs in their native language and to complete the MQs either in their L1 or L2. Then they were invited to attend a RI where they were required to consider their responses to the DCT situations.

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 could create native-like patterns. Furthermore, they were clearly aware of their pragmatism. They attributed their actions to learner-internal factors like their identities, personalities and multilingual identities as well as ongoing life histories. They also mentioned external factors like relational benefits. For example, they described how their relationships with professors led to more relaxed performance in regards to the linguistic and intercultural norms of their university.

However, the interviewees expressed concerns about the social pressures and consequences they could be subject to if they violated the local social norms. They were concerned that their native interlocutors might perceive them as "foreigners" and think they were incompetent. This was a concern similar to the concerns expressed by Brown (2013) and Ishihara (2009).

These findings suggest that native speakers' pragmatic norms are not the preferred norm for Korean learners. They could still be useful for official Korean proficiency tests. Future researchers should reassess the validity of these tests in different cultural contexts and in specific situations. This will allow them to better know how different cultures may impact the pragmatic behavior of L2 learners in the classroom and beyond. Additionally this will allow educators to create more effective methods for teaching and testing korea pragmatics. Seukhoon Paul Choi is principal advisor to Stratways Group, a geopolitical risk consultancy based in Seoul.

Case Studies

The case study method is a research method that focuses on in-depth, participant-centered investigations to study a specific subject. This method uses multiple data sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents to support its findings. This kind of investigation can be used to study specific or complicated subjects that are difficult for other methods of measuring.

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

This study was based on an open source platform that is the KMMLU leaderboard [50], and its benchmarks that are specific to Korea, HyperCLOVA X and LDCC-Solar (figure 1 below). The results of the experiment showed that L2 Korean students were highly vulnerable to native models. They tended to choose wrong answer options that were literal interpretations. This was a departure from accurate pragmatic inference. They also had an inclination to include their own text, or "garbage," to their responses, further detracting from their quality of response.

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

Interviewees were presented with two scenarios which involved interactions with their counterparts and asked to select one of the strategies below to use when making a demand. They were then asked to explain the reasoning behind their choice. Most participants attributed their pragmatic opposition to their personality. For 프라그마틱 슬롯 무료 example, TS claimed that she was hard to get close to, and so she refused to ask about the health of her interlocutors despite having a heavy workload despite the fact that she believed that native Koreans would do so.